Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 6

The NRA-Russia-Trump connection
More information connecting the NRA with Russia is coming to light. The connection is complex, but obvious. It involves senior NRA officers, Torshin, Butina and the Trump campaign. Here are some excerpts that we might be able to use:

There is much more available. I'm not yet sure how this can be incorporated into this article.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific proposal? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I'm still trying to come up with a concise way of distilling all this and it may actually be better to wait until something more conclusive happens.- MrX 🖋

Maria Butina and Russia needs more WP:WEIGHT
This article needs to provide more WP:WEIGHT to Russia and Maria Butina.Casprings (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree.- MrX 🖋 01:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed to death, see the archives. PackMecEng (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And she was just arrested with detailed charges that link her to the NRA.Casprings (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is already in the article, in more than sufficient detail. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this doesn't need more weight. Until we have something saying the NRA was an active participant vs a passive entity why put this here?  The NRA wasn't the only organization she targeted and again we have nothing that says the NRA was a willing or active participant vs an unwilling conduit.  However, much of the text seems written to imply guilt.  That is not OK per WP:NPOV nor WP:RECENT.  Editors need to remember that this isn't a newspaper but an article that would hopefully stand the test of time.  That means we should wait until the story is clear vs adding new bite after news bite.  Springee (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee makes an excellent point that the suggested addition is premature at best.– Lionel(talk) 09:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee makes an argument that has little basis in Wikipedia policy. We don't wait for an event to unfold to an editor's arbitrary standard of active or passive involvement. A simple review of sources makes it very clear that this is very relevant to the NRA. For example"
 * We will have to wait to se what the connection is between this, the NRA's $30 million spend to get Trump elected, and Trump shocking press conference with Putin. Meanwhile, this is relevant to this subject, so briefly covering in the article is required per WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Last I checked weight and consensus were policy. Notnews also applies.  Notnews is also relevant.  The recent RfC made the length of this section clear.  This is new information about the Russian involvement in the 2016 election but not about any roll the NRA might have played.  You are correct in saying we will have to wait but that means we wait until the NRA's roll (deliberate or otherwise) is clear.  This new information is not about the NRA and the outcome of the RfC is clear and still stands. This new addition doesn't tell us anything about the subject of the article. Perhaps we should also review COATRACK. Springee (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC merely establishes that a few sentences are the required minimum. It absolutely does not prohibit us from adding more than that; it just establishes that more than that is not strictly required. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. The closing did not say 'at least a few'. Springee (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Active or not, the NRA was the key organization mentioned in a federal affidavit. This clearly meets wp:10yt.Casprings (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Butina => weighty issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tom, why are you Restoring material when there is clearly no consensus? Your "justification" is nonsense. Springee (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If policy-based arguments count toward consensus, then I think Tomwsulcer is on solid footing. So far, you oppose because you object to the article being updated until the connection with the NRA is proven or admitted to by the NRA (paraphrasing; please correct me if that's wrong). Two editors seem to agree with you, but are not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.- MrX 🖋 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tom's comment above wasn't even a complete sentence. Is that your standard? The to editors have made their views clear.  We have no consensus and as an experienced editor you should know (and respect) that.  You had a chance to build your case in the RfC.  Springee (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Casprings, this isn't new insight into the NRA's roll in the story. Adding another paragraph that had basically nothing to do with the NRA is not something that has WEIGHT.  You can say the NRA was involved thus it had weight but we don't have enough information to say one way or the other (the sources don't say anything new with respect to the NRA's involvement).  Sorry, this is an encyclopedia (see wp:notnews) and we don't add sound bites.  This is why the RFC said limited coverage of this topic.  Springee (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please cite some source that state that this has nothing to do with the NRA, if there are any? Thank you.- MrX 🖋 11:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't say that why would I answer such a question? Perhaps you confused where I said the new paragraph added to the article had nothing to do with the NRA? This isn't the Russian collision article. Since this adds nothing new about the NRA's part in the affair how does it have sufficient weight for yet another paragraph in the article? Regardless, we don't have consensus here and we do have a number of editors weighing in. Consensus is policy and the text should be removed. Springee (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Casprings, this isn't new insight into the NRA's roll in the story. Adding another paragraph that had basically nothing to do with the NRA is not something that has WEIGHT.  You can say the NRA was involved thus it had weight but we don't have enough information to say one way or the other (the sources don't say anything new with respect to the NRA's involvement).  Sorry, this is an encyclopedia (see wp:notnews) and we don't add sound bites.  This is why the RFC said limited coverage of this topic.  Springee (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please cite some source that state that this has nothing to do with the NRA, if there are any? Thank you.- MrX 🖋 11:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't say that why would I answer such a question? Perhaps you confused where I said the new paragraph added to the article had nothing to do with the NRA? This isn't the Russian collision article. Since this adds nothing new about the NRA's part in the affair how does it have sufficient weight for yet another paragraph in the article? Regardless, we don't have consensus here and we do have a number of editors weighing in. Consensus is policy and the text should be removed. Springee (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why would we include a picture of the Maria affidavit in this article? The affidavit specifically does not mention the NRA and in fact takes effort to avoid naming the NRA! Even if we grant that the arrest of Butina is significant enough to add a new paragraph to the article (thus far consensus doesn't support the addition) on what possible grounds could it be reasonable to include a picture of the affidavit document that does not name the NRA so prominently? Is this what people think passes for encyclopedic? Springee (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I agree this does merit inclusion and will grow based on what has come out so far. ContentEditman (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion (now), clearly notable and relevant.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why the general topic is already included in the article. Do you have any reason why this NEW material, text that didn't mention any NRA involvement (or even the NRA) should be added against the closing of the recent RfC on the subject? Springee (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose addition of new material about someone not directly affiliated with the NRA. At least for now, what is the rush? PackMecEng (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comments and the numerous sources that explicitly make this connection. Why delay this information and keep our readers in the dark? - MrX 🖋 12:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The obvious answer would be to build an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. To gain actual perspective and insight verses breaking news. PackMecEng (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, and I thought the obvious answer was to "stall as long as possible with regard to anything that reflects badly on the organization". Silly me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not how it works. Certainly not dump breaking news everywhere where it turns out to be undue non-sense. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a perspective. Here at Wikipedia we don't omit content simply because it came from news sources. This is a compendium of all knowledge, including the knowledge that Russian agents sought a back channel to Trump via the NRA coinciding with the NRA pumping unprecedented amounts of money into getting Trump elected.- MrX 🖋 14:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And that isn't why WP:NOTNEWS was mentioned. Look at your just stated reason for inclusion.  It talks about Trump and Russian involvement.  All of that suggests weight for inclusion somewhere in Wikipdiea.  That doesn't mean it goes here.  The only thing we have that relates the Russian involvement story to the NRA is that currently it is alleged that the NRA was used as a gateway.  It is not alleged that the NRA participated knowingly or did anything wrong.  What new information about the NRA's part in this story has changed with this new news?  Nothing.  Yet we have added a full paragraph to the article AND a picture (!?) of the government document.  This is ridiculous that people would even think that a picture of the document that doesn't name the NRA should be included. Springee (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not how perspective works... On Wikipedia we look for long term expert opinions of people that can look back at events and judge them properly outside the breaking news cycle. So give the talking points a little rest. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to have a look at what this liberal rag has to say about it:
 * - MrX 🖋 00:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh good, so now it's not even positive she was trying to work with the NRA. But a gun-rights organization that is possibly the NRA. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's... not ... what the quote says.... Please stop it with the spin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As.... long... as.... you... stop with the talking points. PackMecEng (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And whatwouldthosebe? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh I thought we were just having fun. PackMecEng (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh I thought we were just having fun. PackMecEng (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This new material doesn't add any information regarding any NRA involvement. We had a long and well subscribed RfC that was clear that only a brief mention should be included (which we already have). The Oppose votes are confusing the general notability of the topic with it's notability in context of the NRA article. This last bit is part of why the RfC closing said the material should be limited. Springee (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC did not say that it should be limited. It said that we should include a few sentences, and left open the possibility of including more than that based on our own decisions.  If you want to restrict the size of the sentence, you're free to start another WP:RFC, but simply looking over the discussion here and there makes it pretty clear you would not succeed (just like you failed to make your case successfully in the RFC you are referencing.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please quote why you think the RfC says "minimum" vs say "maximum" a few sentences. To quote the closing (in it's entirety) "There is consensus to include a few sentences about this issue."[]  How can one honestly claim that means "a few or perhaps a lot"?   as closing editor.  If they agree with Aquillion's opinion I will acquiesce.  Springee (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support; there's sufficient coverage of this that connects it directly to the NRA that WP:DUE requires going into additional depth. Additionally, since people have referenced the RFC, I should point out that I don't think expanding the text would violate it - I read the close as saying that a few sentences are the minimum, not that there is a consensus against adding anything beyond that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What has changed in this new coverage with regards to the NRA's part in this story? The coverage doesn't make any new claims as to what the NRA's involvement was.  It also seems like people aren't reviewing what was actually added given the picture of a document was included in these edits.  Springee (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of collusion. NRA => Butina => indictment is relevant, well-referenced, important. And the story is going to get bigger as more is learned about how the Putin kleptocrats funneled $$$ to GOPers via the NRA.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:WEIGHT. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I love it! This is now being covered internationally. I believe we have broken the scales with all this WP:WEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 00:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is why WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are both important here. Also, again we need to remember this is an article about the NRA, not the Russia election story. It's worth noting that the criteria to become a "Lifetime NRA member" appears to be little more than paying a one time $1500 membership fee. Springee (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hilarious how these discussions go. "It's UNDUE!!!!". Here's two dozen reliable sources. "It's NOTNEWS!!!!!". This goes back at least several months. "It's WP:RECENT!!!!!!". Sigh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. Please also remember, this is an article about the NRA, not the Russians.  Springee (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good faith is not enough, nor is it always evident. I agree with Volunteer Marek. Some of these oppose arguments just seem lazy. You almost have to laugh to avoid crying.- MrX 🖋 02:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The same applies to the "for" arguments. I haven't seen anyone answer questions as to how this shows something new about the NRA or it's involvement nor why we would violate the RfC closing by drastically increasing the length of the text in question.  That mass of articles are all saying the same thing but most of that is not about the NRA and thanks to syndication how much of this is different vs just repeating the same information in many sources?  Springee (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Per Aquillion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. Springee has a long history of making edits that are almost exclusively pro-NRA POV and therefore has proven his/her bias. Editors without an agenda want this material noted briefly. WP:NOTNEWS applies to routine coverage, not information about alleged russian spies in the US which - in all cases - gets analysis in media and later in books because of the geopolitical implications. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Due to the fact that this is a new development and that there is no conclusive evidence that the NRA played a active role in this, I don't think anything should be added, especially since this development has adds nothing about the NRA. As we already have a consensus about this on RFC. Afootpluto (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. And this is now significantly different.Casprings (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing that changed is she was charged with a crime. That is it, maybe the change in the text should reflect that. But more weight shouldn't be added. Especially since there is no new evidence that the NRA played an active role in this. Afootpluto (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ''Note: I took the liberty of moving these comments as they seem to be regarding adding material vs the compromise edit. Please revert if this isn't correct.  Springee (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Afootpluto's comments. The big concern is WP:UNDUE.  This is not an article about the Russian involvement, it's about the NRA.  The additional news is about subjects other than the NRA.  In an effort to compromise between the length and adding new information MrX and I have been working on a compromise text below.  Hopefully this will satisfy those who object based on weight and those who want new material.  Springee (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion per WP:DUE as significant and relevant. This is a new development; the prior RfC could not have addressed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose having an entire section and two paragraphs on it. Having an entire paragraph on events from a single day is WP:RECENTISM (nothing of significance was even proven if I'm not mistaken, but even if it is, the paragraphs should be merged). "believed to be the NRA" seriously?! This content probably doesn't belong per WP:ONEWAY too, in adition to WP:UNDUE. Support including further developments (of significance). w umbolo   ^^^  21:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, "believed to be the NRA" because that's paraphrasing what sources wrote. While the arrest occurred in the course of one day, investigations and indictments obviously take much longer. This investigation has been going on for months. WP:ONEWAY does not apply since this is not a "fringe theory". WP:UNDUE is suspect given the extensive international coverage.- MrX 🖋 01:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why have a picture of a document?
Since at least three editors have added/restored this picture of a document [], was that intentional or just part of a general restoration? Can we at least agree that it's silly to have a picture of a document? Springee (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why NOT have a picture of the document? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary: the picture of the affidavit is not exactly helpful; I think the article can do without. There are pictures of Butina with La Pierre, but I suspect they are not in public domain. That would have been a relevant photo; an image of a legal document does not add to the article much. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Compromise edit
As an effort to come up with a compromise are editors who support inclusion OK with the following:


 * McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[17] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign."[18][19][20] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[17][21] The FBI is investigating whether Torshin funneled money to the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential campaign through the NRA.[22][23] Butina was arrested on July 15, 2018 and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation.[24]

Changes: I removed the picture of the affidavit. I'm not sure if a link to the affidavit is a primary source issue but I wouldn't object to including it as a reference after the NPR reverence ([24] in the proposed text). The Butina paragraph was cut down to state she was arrested and added to the end of the previous paragraph where she was first mentioned. The rest of the paragraph, removed, is quoted below for reference.
 * According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank.

I hope this will make for a reasonable compromise between UNDUE length and details that aren't related to the NRA and those who feel this new information must be included. Springee (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the picture is that useful, but we should to add: "Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, a group with which she has deep ties." - MrX 🖋 00:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out how to rephrase it a bit based on the WSJ article. That article makes it clear she targeted a range of gun groups, not just the NRA, and that many felt her efforts were genuine.  Quoting from the WSJ, "The allegations against Ms. Butina surprised those in the American gun-rights community who have expressed admiration for her efforts to expand gun ownership in Russia, where it comes with many restrictions."  If we add this perhaps we can compress the Torshin material a bit.  It was added without consensus (about an even mix of editor for and against) so some trimming for space shouldn't hurt.   Springee (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

New suggestion: Similar to before but the sentence starting with "In May, Democrats..." was compressed by removing the quote and adding funding to the list of "accessing and assisting". This saves words without removing content. The sentence "The FBI is investigating" was shortened and moved to just after the Judiciary committee statement since they discuss the same thing. This reduces length without removing content.
 * McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[17] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing, assisting and funding Mr. Trump and his campaign through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina.[18][19][20] The FBI is investigating these claims.[22][23] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[17][21] Butina was arrested on July 15, 2018 and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation.  Her (should this include "alleged" per BOLP?) efforts "shocked those in American gun-rights community" where her efforts targeted gun rights groups including cultivating ties inside of the NRA.

This adds MrX's material in compressed form. Springee (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the current version is better, not to say that I couldn't be improved. "Shocking the American gun-rights community" is so not the point of all this.- MrX 🖋 02:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article current version or the previously discussed version. The article current version is too long (per RfC) but I think much of that can be dealt with judiciously.  I admit, the "shocking" part wasn't that great.  The issue I have is the WSJ doesn't imply wrong doing on the part of the NRA (or any other gun-rights organization).  That shouldn't be lost in all this.  Perhaps that means we should add an additional sentence.  However, I also want to make sure we keep the overall length under control.  Are you OK with the edits other than the last sentence?  Can we come up with a compromise version of the last sentence?   Springee (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We are way past the RfC. Consensus has obviously changed. The coverage in reliable sources has grown exponentially. Perhaps we could orient our arguments around what sources say? That's what matters.- MrX 🖋 03:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? The new information isn't something like "NRA executive caught taking Russian bribes". This is big news regarding the Russian involvement story but what has changed regarding the NRA's roll in this story?  Springee (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Next try:
 * McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[17] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing, assisting and funding Mr. Trump and his campaign through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina.[18][19][20] The FBI is investigating these claims.[22][23] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[17][21] Butina was arrested on July 15, 2018 and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation. Her efforts were directed toward people associated with gun-rights organizations including the National Rifle Association, a group with which she cultivated ties.

This is basically MrX's last two sentences with slight changes added to the second try that compressed the older material. Springee (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

, this material is subject to active discussion and currently there is not a consensus for inclusion. It is not reasonable to continue to add new material while the talk page discussion is in process. [] Springee (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I added: "Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, with which she has deep ties." What part of the sentence do you object to and why. Be sure to look at the sources please.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I object to making article changes to the material we are discussing here while we are discussing it. Springee (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like we go through this every time. By my count eight editors tacitly or explicitly support this material, while four oppose it. That is indicative of a consensus to include.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we use those numbers we still have only a weak consensus (four +) and remember we also have well attended RfC that applies and the disputed material is very recent. I would rather focus on the compromise text so we can have a win-win for all.  Springee (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm, a supermajority is hardly a "weak consensus".- MrX 🖋 03:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your claim is 8 to 4 with no notification and people who have weighed in as part of the previous discussion haven't weighed in yet. Again, let's go for compromise.  Springee (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the current version (which appears to have consesus):

On 15 July, 2018, Butina was arrested and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation. According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, with which she has deep ties.
 * What do you think should be added or removed, and why?- MrX 🖋 15:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not all of the section nor even all of the recently added material. The full section is below.  This is a lot more than just a few sentences.  We can condense much of this without removing content.  I think we have general agreement that the picture can go.  I would assume there is a primary article on this.  Why not link it there vs adding more material here?  The current local consensus is only 4 editors in favor of adding the extra material (not considering argument quality on either side).  One of the issues raised in the RfC that is still valid now is how much of this is about the NRA vs something the Russians did?  We have an extensive article on the subject [] with a related section.  We should link to it then limit length here.  The larger RfC was closed saying the length should be limited.  Anyway, I think my condensed text above is a good compromise.  Springee (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

===Russian influence===

McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign. In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign." Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization. The FBI is investigating whether Torshin funneled money to the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential campaign through the NRA.

On 15 July, 2018, Butina was arrested and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation. According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, with which she has deep ties.

OK, here is a diff showing your proposed changes. My two major objections are the removal of this

and the addition of "... gun-rights organizations including...". and changing "deep ties" to "cultivated ties".- MrX 🖋 22:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for collaborating on this. Starting with the second, how about "cultivating deep ties"?  The WSJ and other sources make it clear the ties were long standing so much as ones she spent years building thought the guise of establishing a gun rights group in Russia.  That is why I picked the word "cultivate"  However, I also agree the ties were clearly deep.
 * Can we condense the "According to..." sentence down without impacting content? What about  I'm not sure why the official at the Russian Central Bank is significant and would suggest cutting even more to "...Butina worked at the direction of a high-level Russian government official".  The key point being she was working on behalf of a foreign government, not so much the foreign bank.  Springee (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I'm fine with that.- MrX 🖋 01:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , while I'm trying to keep length down I'm going to suggest adding a topic sentence to the paragraph and having it link to the primary 2016 Russian election article's NRA section []. Clearly this is a VERY big deal and a very big topic and it seems odd that we don't link to the primary topic.  This also might allow for a rework of the current McClatchy intro sentence which, more and more, isn't a good topic sentence for the whole paragraph.  Springee (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.- MrX 🖋 01:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * First try so feel free to object and/or modify. Since we now have an affidavit I don't think we need to put as much emphasis on McClatchy.  The first sentence isn't as elegant as I would like so suggestions would be welcome there.  I used "suspected" with Torshin since I believe that is all that BLP would allow.
 * ''A federal investigation [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|

Russian attempts to influence US politics]] has resulted in accusations against Russian citizens of developing and exploiting ties with the NRA to influence US politics and support the 2016 Trump election campaign. The deputy governor Central Bank of Russia, Aleksandr Torshin, is suspected to have illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[78] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign." ...(continued as suggested in previous discussions)
 * Springee (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts, objections, improvements? Springee (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear you want to replace this:
 * with this:
 * I think it's missing some important information. How about this instead:
 * It may needs some further tweaking, but I think this is a bit closer to the what sources have reported.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm OK with that but it my understanding is that the Butina arrest didn't come out of Mueller's investigation. Rather it came out of a different investigation that may have started prior to Mueller's work.  The NPR article doesn't mention Mueller hence why I left Mueller out.  I don't mind putting Mueller in there but I want to make sure we don't give credit to Mueller's investigation if another group was actually responsible.  If all of this is under the Mueller investigation then I'm fine with your suggestions.  Springee (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear if the Butina arrest had anything to do with the Mueller investigation, but I do know the FBI was involved. Perhaps there's a way to word it so that we don't imply that Meuller's investigation is related to Butina's arrest.- MrX 🖋 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we just say something like "Investigations by the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller..."? Springee (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine.- MrX 🖋 11:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear if the Butina arrest had anything to do with the Mueller investigation, but I do know the FBI was involved. Perhaps there's a way to word it so that we don't imply that Meuller's investigation is related to Butina's arrest.- MrX 🖋 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we just say something like "Investigations by the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller..."? Springee (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine.- MrX 🖋 11:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

, I've made the edit. Please review it in case I didn't get something right. Thanks for working with me on this. Springee (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018
Wingate then wrote a marksmanship manual.[21] This line in the NRA article is incorrect. William Church serially published, in the "Army and Navy Journal," several articles on marksmanship in 1870 and 1871. Those articles were written by George Wingate and would, in 1874 be published as the Manual for Rifle Practice, specifically at the request of officers of the NY National Guard. for reference see "THE NATIONAL GUARD, THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE, AND THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND THE RISE OF A LOBBY FOR PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP - Jeffrey Marlin PhD dissertation, Georgia State University, 2013 2600:1700:7DE0:11F0:25A0:C4A1:F998:2BF (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Most powerful lobbyist
After looking at the lead and body we have a source from a 1999 poll saying they are the most powerful. But actually looking into it that does not seem to be the case at least from a numbers standpoint. They do not even make the top 50 for dollars spent. It could resonably be argued they are the most powerful guns rights lobby, but not lobbyist in general. This should be updated. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the refs above but I think it sounds a bit iffy to quantify the influence of different advocacy groups so precisely (I see the lede currently ranks the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobby groups which is also iffy). It should be enough to simply describe the group as highly influential on the national and state level and/or recount specific successes. I wrote a short paragraph about the group's influence here (the last paragraph under "political expansion") and I think that the lede could incorporate both the ref and some of the text in that paragraph for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems a lot more reasonable and correct to me. Could even take the first sentence "The NRA has been described as influential in shaping American gun control policy." and replace the one in the lead with that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support that change. In reading on the subject it appears the NRA is influential not because of spending but because of effective organization combined with motivated membership.  Springee (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that is even the case anymore. PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As others have said, "most influential" does not mean "highest contributors." I have no problem dropping the "top three" ranking. But I think it's important to note not only that the NRA is influential in shaping American gun control policy, but also that it's one of the more effective/influential lobbying groups generally. Important cites:
 * Neutralitytalk 20:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with the proposed change to lead from Snoogan's paragraph? PackMecEng (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with "The NRA has been influential in shaping American gun control policy, and is seen as among the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States." Neutralitytalk 02:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will implement this change unless anyone objects to it. Neutralitytalk 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have an issue with "and is seen as among the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States" as discussed below. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * on what basis? Do you doubt the reliability of the three recent, high-quality sources that I cite above? Neutralitytalk 23:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, we both have relatively recent, though not that recent reliable sources offering different opinions on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are equating the two ThinkProgress op-eds and one survey you linked below (which deal with public opinion and not influence) to the three academic works I cite above? Neutralitytalk 02:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah more recent (less than a decade old) sources that are all about the NRA specifically and not burred in general books that make little mention of them. The only source that makes prominent mention is "Gun Crusaders: The NRA's Culture War" which is a questionable source in general. I like in "American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials 2008" the quote is in a pop up section titled "Making a difference" and not a big focus elsewhere. Just saying yes other more modern sources disagree with that assessment. Perhaps a compromise, something making note that these days people also disagree with the assessment they are one of the most powerful? PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, random blog posts are not better than, or equivalent to, university-press-published works. Neutralitytalk 04:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And you missed everything I just wrote. PackMecEng (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1999 story was a survey of individual people, not a scientific study. In short, it was opinion only.  Pegging the NRA as the third-most-influential lobby group is unfounded in science, regardless of this ridiculous survey.  The numbers do not support it, and the NRA spends no more than $3M a year on lobbying.  This is a pittance compared with Pharmaceutical groups or Agricultural groups.  The way it is currently written sounds politically biased, and political bias has no place in Wikipedia, all evidence to the contrary aside. DeeJaye6 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Trying to hide the NRA's obviously immense lobbying power behind a pretence that such power only comes from the amount of money spent sounds to me like political bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That goes back to my previous post, that they are basically not that powerful anymore. When even ThinkProgress says they are not that special anymore they just might not be. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's quite different from saying we can measure power by looking at money spent. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, they spend less money than most and have less influence than most even with the money they do spend. PackMecEng (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that an organisation with so many members, all reading NRA political views, can have so little influence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's kind of crazy, but in the past year or so RS have been reporting that it has. PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I am not trying to pick a fight here; I am simply trying to separate something that can be shown in evidence vs. something that you and others "feel" is correct, but cannot offer hard evidence to support. (And a simple survey of private individuals is not evidence of anything other than public belief.)  As the guidelines say, stay objective, and deal with fact.DeeJaye6 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that an organisation with so many members, all reading NRA political views, can have so little influence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's kind of crazy, but in the past year or so RS have been reporting that it has. PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I am not trying to pick a fight here; I am simply trying to separate something that can be shown in evidence vs. something that you and others "feel" is correct, but cannot offer hard evidence to support. (And a simple survey of private individuals is not evidence of anything other than public belief.)  As the guidelines say, stay objective, and deal with fact.DeeJaye6 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * .--Moxy (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm generally neutral on this but the source offered by Moxy is just citing the same 1999 study that PackMecEng is concerned about. Springee (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct.it's a Grest example of how things hAve not changed.. as the scholarly Community had not seen a change....it goes into details of modern stats.-many more sources can be found but this one explains the reasoning behind the statement  and how it still holds true. Moxy (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm coming late to this discussion, but it's absurd to challenge the notion that the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. - perhaps THE most powerful in terms of getting voters to the polls on a single issue, in their case gun rights. It is well known that their "report card" can make or break a candidate. Here's a sample of sources pointing out their power: --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is what they are powerful on, single issue gun control. Past that they do not have much breath of power compared to other groups. That is even evident in all the sources shown in this section, they all preface it by saying power in gun related areas. In the grand scheme of what groups are impacting legislation, unless it is gun related, the NRA has no say. So are they powerful on a single issue? Sure absolutely! But are they powerful compared to others or the other 99% of issues? Not so much. PackMecEng (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Name for me two or three other lobbying groups that have the power to totally prevent any action whatsoever by Congress on their issue, no matter how minor the proposed action or how much public support it has - or to make or break a candidate based solely on their support or opposition. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure off the top of my head AARP, NAACP, NARAL, AFL-CIO, and AIPAC. All of which have had endorsements make or break a candidate and have more general influence over multiple issues. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * AIPAC, maybe - in terms of the ability to block anything in Congress that they don’t like, but not in terms of being able to make or break an officeholder except in a few very specific jurisdictions. NAACP, NARAL? They only wish they had that kind of influence! We have all seen dozens of state legislatures pass discriminatory or anti-abortion legislation, and only the courts can block them; these groups are powerless. Likewise the AFL-CIO, which had that kind of power 50 years ago but is almost completely powerless now. AARP possibly does exert that kind of influence, by shouting “Save Medicare!” in the same way the NRA shouts “they’re going to take your guns!” But the others you name? Not even close. (And now it's probably time to hat this as straying off topic.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * AIPAC has just as much if not more power than the NRA. AARP is no joke either, and well past a single issue crowd. NAACP, I don't think I have to say anymore on that one. No one can legitimately question the impact of them endorsing or more importantly condemning a candidate. NARAL is more single issue than most mentioned but still powerful due to their good numbers and dedicated people. Finally the AFL-CIO like the NRA was a lot more powerful than now, so basically on par with the NRA these days. Though you cannot give that much money and have over 13 million members (you know over twice as many as the NRA) and say with a straight face they don't matter anymore. So looking at it objectivly all those are at least as powerful as the NRA, most of them more so. So what is the objection? PackMecEng (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So at this point we have no sources that rebutt what we have. So no guess work ....all we can do is regurgitate the sources we have till something new pops up.--Moxy (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait are you disputing those are powerful lobbies or that you would prefer to see a source for each stating as much? PackMecEng (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree.....but what I am saying its best to say what the sources say be they older or not till we have new academic publications stating differently. --Moxy (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources do appear to be outdated, especially for such a flexible subject that can change rapidly. PackMecEng (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are these so called changes where are the academic publications supports this assertion? So far all we have is an editor telling us it's changed.--Moxy (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) --Moxy (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will dig up some more sources later today, but really "so called"? Also are we talking or are you referring to someone else when you say "an editor"? Kind of strange... PackMecEng (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Moxy, I'm not sure I would put too much weight into that source for being out of an academic press. I'm not saying no weight but remember, it's a book vs a journal paper and it's simply citing the earlier work.  It's not a recent study affirming earlier work.  I could believe that some of this is self fulfilling prophesy or repeating common knowledge.  That said, I also haven't seen much to challenge the claim.  Alternatively we could date the intro claim.  Would it be better to make the intro claim less definitive and then add this discussion to the body? Springee (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I am thinking as well. Describe it more in the body and leave the lead to be more general. PackMecEng (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, folks, the simple fact is, every site that talks about the "influence" of the NRA and how "powerful" they are couches that statement in "the most powerful special-interest lobby" or "the most powerful gun support group" or some such. MelanieN, above, gives a link to the Center for Responsive Politics that actually contradicts what they report in their "Open Secrets" link that I posted, above.  If you cannot post facts that support calling them this, then this is not something that belongs on Wikipedia.  The fact is that the NRA does not even show up in the top *50* lobbying groups in the US.  Yes, that is about money.  Are there other ways to be influential?  Of course.  But none that are measurable; even pointing out that they have influenced the passing of laws, *which* laws?  And were those laws more important than other laws?  Who is to say?  And that puts this argument to rest.  This is Wikipedia: facts or nothing.  Please no more opinion or emotion. DeeJaye6 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And now back to the  sources... if any rebut these pls bring them forward...cant bases our article on editors guess work.--Moxy (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My issue is most powerful lobby in general. Even the source you mention all make clear that they are, in regards to gun related issues. So how about a compromise, we take the quote above and clarify to gun related issues something like. "The NRA has been the most powerful lobbying group influencing American gun control policy." That would be in line with the sources cited and give a clear window into the scope. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course is not the world most powerful lobby group...is all about the guns. I think we have some people lost about what is being talked about. Yes most influential GUN group.--Moxy (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah sounds like we had some crossed wires then. I have no problem with stating in wiki's voice that they are the most powerful guns lobby. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the sources presented above, it would be fine to say that they are the most powerful gun lobby, but we should also add that they are one of the most powerful single-issue lobbying groups (or public interest lobbying groups) in the US. Otherwise, we are understating the facts.- MrX 🖋 11:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree they are one of the most powerful single issue lobbies, but that is a bit redundant with powerful gun lobby. Would it be better to swap gun lobby for single issue lobby? PackMecEng (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The offending line reads, "Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC." This is ridiculous.  And saying that they are the "most influential gun lobby group" is also nonsense.  No one could readily name another gun lobby group.  Just drop the misleading line altogether! DeeJaye6 (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Scott Meltzer - your article just quotes the Fortune article again, which is only *opinion*, not *fact*. @David DeGrazia and Gregg Lee Carter - your articles specify that the NRA is the most powerful "gun lobby group" in the country. @Robert Spitzer, your carefully chosen quote is just the Fortune magazine *opinion* all over again. What precedes that quote in the article lists actual cases proving the lack of power in the NRA.  These are facts, not opinion or emotion.  Case:  CLOSED. DeeJaye6 (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the sources presented above, it would be fine to say that they are the most powerful gun lobby, but we should also add that they are one of the most powerful single-issue lobbying groups (or public interest lobbying groups) in the US. Otherwise, we are understating the facts.- MrX 🖋 11:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree they are one of the most powerful single issue lobbies, but that is a bit redundant with powerful gun lobby. Would it be better to swap gun lobby for single issue lobby? PackMecEng (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The offending line reads, "Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC." This is ridiculous.  And saying that they are the "most influential gun lobby group" is also nonsense.  No one could readily name another gun lobby group.  Just drop the misleading line altogether! DeeJaye6 (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Scott Meltzer - your article just quotes the Fortune article again, which is only *opinion*, not *fact*. @David DeGrazia and Gregg Lee Carter - your articles specify that the NRA is the most powerful "gun lobby group" in the country. @Robert Spitzer, your carefully chosen quote is just the Fortune magazine *opinion* all over again. What precedes that quote in the article lists actual cases proving the lack of power in the NRA.  These are facts, not opinion or emotion.  Case:  CLOSED. DeeJaye6 (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * More than a week has passed since I debunked the arguments in support of calling them "third most powerful" lobby group, and no one has come up with any other arguments. The verifiable facts do not support the opinions that they are so powerful.  Can we come to a consensus now? DeeJaye6 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have specific wording proposals to make, then post them here. As of now, there is no consensus for a modification to the wording. Neutralitytalk 02:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggested reword:
 * Change: "Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC[9][10]"
 * To: "It serves as the primary gun lobby group in the U.S."


 * This is factual, not opinion, not political, and not misleading in any way. It also leads into the rest of that sentence perfectly. And there are many, many references within this talk page to back up that statement, so take your pick. DeeJaye6 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, we need folks to speak up for or against the reword. I am willing to entertain more arguments against my suggestion, but I have researched this quite thoroughly, and there is nothing but opinion and emotion behind calling them the "third most powerful" lobby group in the U.S.
 * @Neutrality, we actually have a consensus, if you read the whole thread. You are one of only three who have posted here in favor of keeping the current wording.  Five others (including me) have questioned the use of the current wording, and just about everyone is in favor of simply saying that they are the biggest gun lobby group.  This is supported by the facts, and does not bring in iffy statements like "the most powerful single-issue group" or such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeJaye6 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018
ADD "READS LIKE AN ADVERTISEMENT" and "PRIMARY SOURCES USED" HEADER - OR CHANGE THE OFFENDING TEXT

I don't understand why the very opening paragraph of this page remains intact and have not brought about the addition of the "reads like an advertisement" header, as well as the header warning readers that a page uses primary sources!

I started reading this page in order to learn of the true origins of its subject after learning there are some false reconstructions of its history floating around the web. So perhaps I was particularly primed to notice any bias I encountered. That said, I checked the inline citations to review two "facts" mentioned early on, the second of which referring to the NRA having fought both against and FOR gun laws. I do not know this to be untrue, by the way, but when I clicked on the link within the citation I found the source to be....wait for it....the NRA WEBSITE! Not only the subject's website - the ultimate primary source - but an ARCHIVED version of it which no longer exists live on the internet!

''The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights.[5][6][7] Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related legislation since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against firearms legislation since 1975.[8]  Founded to advance rifle marksmanship, the modern NRA continues to teach firearm safety and competency. The organization also publishes several magazines and sponsors competitive marksmanship events.[8] According to the NRA, it has 6 million members as of May 2018.[3]''

Above are the first two paragraphs which hit me as somewhat advertorial, the far lesser of the two issues I outlined. The citation that caused me immediate concern, and was the impetus to my writing you this request, is marked "[8] and can be found in both paragraphs." Hovering one's cursor over it reveals the source itself and the live link to its address on the internet.

Forgive me for not understanding how to use even the editing tools in this page (a graphic designer for years, I'm embarrassingly wiki-editing illiterate), but I'm hopeful I've given enough information for whomever reads this to check

Thanks so much!

Mashugana75 (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nothing seriously concerning about the intro paragraph, at least from what I can entail. ToThAc (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"advocates for"
I suppose that there's little chance that this semi-literate usage can be defeated — it seems to be here to stay. The problem with it, as in the first sentence of this article, is that it's ambiguous as between "advocates" and "campaigns for". In this case, the meaning is presumably "campaigns for" (it's hard to see why that wasn't used), and sometimes the meaning is clearly "advocates" — but often the meaning could be either, and the context doesn't tell us which. It would be nice if Wikipedia could include this in its style rules. --213.162.108.70 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

#ThisisMyLane
On 7 Nov 2018, the NRA tweeted that "someone should tell self-important doctors to stay in their lane" and cease their advocacy for public safety in the matter of gun rights. Doctors have responded with a deluge of rejoinders detailing ER/OR experiences of mutilated and dead children who found guns with ammunition already loaded and accidently killed themselves or a sibling or playmate with it. The hashtag #ThisisMyLane may become for gun violence what #MeToo has become for sexual assault. At the very least, this warrants monitoring and maybe create a section for it under Media. 70.27.170.174 (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Typo Correction Request"
While scanning this page I happened upon a confusing sentence. It appears that with in the section "Litigation," 7th paragraph, the sentence immediately following citation [119] starts with "The requires city residents to..." most likely should state "The [ordnance] requires city residents to..." I yield changing the document to others with the ability and authority to do so. Mikeyboyaz (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Done! Good catch. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Anothjer typo: the FactBox says NRA founded 16 Nov 1871 (in NYC?) but hold the mouse over the footnote and you get an article from the NYTimes dated 17 Sep 1871 talking about the founding meeting yesterday, ie 16 Sep 1871. So one or the other is wrong. 70.27.170.174 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Is the NRA a civil rights organization?
Um, no. The NRA is not a civil rights organization in the common understanding of the term. Someone added the article to Category:Civil rights organizations and I reverted, but this was undone by another user, with the justification, "this is a claim made outside of Wikipedia".

But that is not sufficient grounds. WP:CATDEF says, A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. "Civil rights organization" is not a defining characteristic of the NRA, because multiple, independent, reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define the NRA this way. Hence, it does not belong in this category. Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * While I think a number of RS's do call it a civil rights organization, CATDEF also says it shouldn't be controversial. Given previous talk page discussions here I think it would be controversial.  I will self revert. Springee (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that's the right decision. Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell it has been brought up a couple of times in the archives. Both times finding consenus to include. The second time being an RFC that snow closed include. Has something new happened to over ride the RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. A few "new things". In several places.  Volunteer Marek   20:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We could hold a new one then, but I am not seeing anything to overturn the old. PackMecEng (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also after a quick scan of the votes I only found one person tagged as a sock. LavaBaron as a sock of BlueSalix, and it looks like blue did not vote. PackMecEng (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on RS I support that the NRA is, among other things, a civil rights organization. However I agree with Mathglot's read of CATDEF so I reverted my edit.  I agree with PackMecEng reg the text they restored. Springee (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The NRA claims it is a civil rights organization, but that's hardly definitive, the NRA has routinely attempted to co-opt the civil rights movement. Civil rights politics in the United States has its roots in the movement to end discrimination against African Americans. Where is the 2nd amendment mentioned in Civil Rights Act of 1964? Since when are gun owners a "Protected group"? DN (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA supported restrictions on who could carry guns on the streets in order to decrease hostility towards European immigrants—who were known to openly carry weapons at the time—within the country. And after the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, the NRA backed the Gun Control Act that passed the same year, which put substantial restrictions on the purchase of guns based on mental illness, drug addiction and age, among other factors. Ironically, it was the gun control laws that were put into effect against African-Americans and the Black Panthers that led “rural white conservatives” across the country to fear any restriction of their own guns, Winkler says. In less than a decade, the NRA would go from backing gun control regulations to inhibit groups they felt threatened by to refusing to support any gun control legislation at all." . DN (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The only source I can see making the claim that it is a civil rights organization is Tampa Bay Times. That's not sufficient. There's another source given "Gun Nation" from the New Press but I have serious doubt regarding whether it actually supports the text. Unless the text can be verified, I'm removing it. Here is a source which explicitly says this "civil rights organization" is bullshit. And the text in the article basically makes this assertion in Wikipedia voice by pretending that the "it's a civil rights organization" is a given and the only dispute is whether it's the "oldest". That's straight up POV.  Volunteer Marek  00:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Two more sources which say it's bullshit and just a propaganda talking point spread by the NRA itself and some fringe folks.  Volunteer Marek  00:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if we set a low threshold for source acceptability then we should include the fact that it's also a "terrorist organization" (Being facetious. We shouldn't. But neither should we include NRA's self serving disinfo either).  Volunteer Marek  00:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m bothered by the concept that the NRA is a civil rights organization when you compare it to other such groups battling an enormous history of monstrous oppression. The KKK and other racist orgs have claimed that they are fighting for the “civil rights” of “oppressed” whites. No, they’re not. Seems that most sources consider the current version of the NRA as a gun industry advocacy, or lobbying group. I don’t have a firm opinion and could possibly be convinced otherwise. But, this seems a rather huge stretch and I’m not seeing this in the preponderance of WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The NRA argue a lot of void for vagueness cases and this stuff is actually important from a legal standpoint — even if we can't find a secondary source for civil rights organization some of these details should probably be added to the article. Vague criminal statutes were ruled unconstitutional in the wake of the civil rights movement (probably one of the movement's most significant accomplishments) because they leave it to police officer discretion whether an act fits the statutory definition or not (so, per the NRA's arguments, whether the rifle is a banned assault rifle, etc.)...the main issue is finding secondary sources that could be added to the article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a few, but they are hard to find below. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This source seems authoritative. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Gun rights are gun rights. Civil rights are civil rights and in an American context that means rights for African Americans. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Civil rights are personal rights guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws enacted by Congress. PackMecEng (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that District_of_Columbia_v._Heller state that gun ownership and use are civil rights, it's hard to understand how an organization that advocates for the same cannot be a civil rights organization. -- Frotz(talk) 01:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where in Heller did the Supreme Court say that the 2nd amendment is a "civil right" or that the 2nd amendment is part of what is commonly termed Civil rights? I had trouble finding it.

Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Start with the lead paragraph in Civil and political rights: "Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.". The SCOTUS didn't use the exact phrase "civil right", but they did say "individual right".  Given that everything else in the Bill of Rights protects civil rights, don't you think that the Second also protects a civil right?  -- Frotz(talk) 02:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But, does that make this specific org a civil rights org? Besides, that's WP:OR. What do the preponderance of RS say? O3000 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not Original Research. This is basic language.  The fact that a major portion of a group's activities are dedicated to Foo typically means that the group is a Foo group.  -- Frotz(talk) 03:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's you saying it's a civil rights org because you say that it's basic language, or it's a Foo group, then it's original research. If it's a bunch of reliable sources saying it's a civil rights org or a Foo group, and a bunch of reliable sources saying it isn't, then it's controversial.  If it's virtually all reliable sources saying it's a civil rights org, then it's a civil rights org for the purposes of WP:CATDEF, and the category should be restored.  But if it's either of the first two cases, then it shouldn't. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How does that jibe with the RFC here on the subject? It was snow closed as keep. PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

""Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression." does not mention guns either. Freedom of the press is not a civil right either for example. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you figure that freedom of the press is not a civil right? More fundamentally, do you think that communication with one another without having someone breathing down your neck is a civil right or not?  -- Frotz(talk) 03:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The papers say "After the Senate passed S. 60, the House amended it to protect the civil right to “the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right to bear arms.” PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Too many Straw man arguments being presented here. The 1st amendment and freedom of press is irrelevant..The issue is SYNTH not OR. Unless we see some consistent RS stating that the NRA is a civil rights organization the argument is pointless. DN (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You need a preponderance of sources which refer to it as such. Not just NRA referring to itself in those terms.  Volunteer Marek   04:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The text you are edit warring over is supported by the sources. The text you keep changing it to is not. The original text is about the claim of oldest not about if they are one at all. Neither source says there is a dispute if they are one, just if they are the oldest. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick question, which part of District of Columbia v. Heller states that the NRA is a civil rights organization? DN (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not as far as I can tell. I think it was brought up in relation to the question of if it was a civil rights case in general. PackMecEng (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not saying that it's impossible for the NRA to be considered a CRO, I'm just asking for some unbiased RS to back it up per WP rules. DN (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Closest I found was The Independent and The Hill. Though The Hill is a blog, but could be reliable I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are a few more. PackMecEng (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No offense, but op-eds and sources referring to the NRA's own description of itself would seem to be non-starters. I'm unfamiliar with the The Independent as a RS. DN (talk)
 * The context in the book by Carlisle states "from the perspective of the right wing in America" - which may be true in this author's opinion. Either way it would have to be stated as such, although again, some may disagree and that would bring us back to square one...DN (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Independent in general is considered a strong source. True op-eds are not ideal but still a RS for what it is used for here. We can get rid of that one book source if you want, just because there are two other book sources listed. Also if sources are using the NRA's description of itself perhaps that is because they agree with it. Finally to your post below there are really two kind of civil rights. One is the movement you mention and the other, which is what is being refereed to here, is Civil and political rights. PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

See Civil rights movement DN (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Self-descriptions are not useful here. Realize that white supremacist groups often think of themselves as civil rights groups. We would need RS that use the categorization. O3000 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * My sense is that the NRA masquerades as a civil rights organization but it really is a lobbying group to promote gun sales.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So they don't actually do anything to promote gun rights or the 2ndA? Springee (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A right is a power to do something in the future that others acknowledge that the person can properly do. That is, a right is advance permission to do what one wants to do. The idea of civil society is to expand these rights as far as possible provided that these rights do not infringe on the rights of others, and the space between one person's rights and another person's rights can be thought of as a custom or a law. So one can have a right to walk on a sidewalk provided that one does not bump into another person. One can think of rights as like tickets to do things in the future, and like some tickets, such as a train ticket, one can buy rights, and use them at future times, all subject to law. It can get quite complex; strictly speaking, it does not make sense to call something a right if it requires that other people provide a service for free; so I don't see a right of healthcare, for example. Now the whole subject of gun rights can get confusing, since a gun can be thought of as a tool for a person to protect his or her other rights (such as a right to life, a right to have property not be stolen and so forth) but a gun right can also be used to take away somebody else's right to life -- for example, if an angry person with a gun decides to start shooting in a school or mall. So the conceptual underpinnings of a term like gun rights is ambiguous and confused, and my sense is that the NRA has been marching itself under the flag of gun rights when it more properly can be understood as an organization that lobbies for gun sales and gun ownership.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is the National Rifle Association of America Civil Rights Defense Fund (that's what it's called), but based on this discussion I don't think it's inclusion is likely to gain a consensus without reliable secondary sources that discuss it. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tom, you explained why you personally don't agree but we need policy/RS. Springee (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course we need policy and RS but it can help to get a gist of the underlying concepts, particularly regarding the concept of right. If we see the NRA as supporting the civil rights of gun owners, to defend their property and protect their own lives from criminals, then yes the NRA is a 'civil rights' organization; if we see the NRA as encouraging widespread gun ownership that leads to repeated mass shootings, then it is indirectly harming the 'civil rights' of those victims. What I'm saying is that the concept is open to interpretation or misinterpretation, depending on one's politics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It would behoove us all to stick to what the sources say. So far, there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to whether the ones provided by PackMecEng qualify the NRA as a CRO. Perhaps they should check with WP:RSN DN (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review previous discussions on this topic including the past RfC. If current editors feel the consensus has changed we should ping editors involved with previous related discussions and verify they agree with the change in consensus.  Springee (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not stick to the RFC that said they were? If you want to change consensus perhaps we could hold another RFC. Basically what Springee said. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the last RfC was rife with sock puppetry. And there's a better, and very simple reason - there's essentially no sourcing for the claim that it's a "civil rights organization", oldest or otherwise. In fact, one of the sources being used (Gun Show Nation) is being blatantly misrepresented. And that's putting aside the obvious WP:SYNTH problems in the article.  Volunteer Marek   08:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you show this wide spread sock work? I found that just one of the editors was a sock.  That wouldn't have changed the RfC outcome.  You also haven't supported your synth claim.  Why don't we ask the RfC participants what they think since most are still active editors.  Springee (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There was one sock in the RFC that had 12 votes. The final result minus the sock was 9 support and 2 oppose. So the RFC is just fine even with the one sock. Also just above I gave 6 sources, half of them book sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your sources are either opinion pieces or they're sources which don't state that NRA is a civil rights organization but rather state that NRA claims it's a civil rights organization. We can certainly include the fact that NRA likes to portray itself as such. But we can't call them a civil rights organization in Wikipedia voice.  Volunteer Marek   14:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think CATDEF would also be a good guide in this regard. DN (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I might not even disagree, you can use that as the reason for a RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * CATDEF asks if the article should be in a category, not about content specifically. If we were to put "The NRA is a..." in the lead I agree we should follow CATDEF.  In the body, especially if it is clear not all agree then it shouldn't apply.  Springee (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Your lead statement is exactly right: CATDEF is independent of content. Whether an article can belong to a category simply depends on whether RSes define the article topic that way. If Category:Cherry-tree hater is a defining characteristic of George Washington, then the article may be placed in that category, but the article doesn't have to say anything about cherry-tree hating in order to do so. Naturally, if it is a defining characteristic, sooner or later someone ought to add it to the article at some point, but it's a volunteer organization, and just because no one has added the content yet, doesn't mean someone else can't categorize it properly. Conversely, the bar for adding the category is pretty high: reliable sources must commonly and consistently define the subject as having [that characteristic].  But the second part of what you said about CATDEF is not correct; CATDEF applies irrespective of whether the assertions about it in the article appear in the lead, in the body, or do not appear at all. Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Community consensus says it is an appropriate category. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit break (civil rights org)

 * No Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * And US white supremacist orgs like to cite the US Constitution also, claiming they are fighting for the civil rights of white people. That doesn't make them civil rights orgs. What matters is what RS labels them as. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me we have two questions that are related in a hierarchy. The first point of debate is if the right to bear arms (ie the 2ndA) is a civil right. The second is if the NRA is active in protecting that right. I think we would agree that the second is true, the NRA does actively support/protect. The question is if the 2nd A would be considered a civil right? To that end I would note that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically protected the right to have arms for self defense. If RSs call gun rights a civil right or essential to civil rights I think that bolsters the case for inclusion. That doesn't mean we can't include a statement saying that sources disagree. Springee (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And white supremacist groups are now calling themselves the “White civil rights movement” claiming they are fighting for their First Amendment Rights under the US Constitution. Again, what matters is what RS say; not any editor’s logical argument for the label. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your repeated comment about white supremacists groups is a red hearing to this discussion. We do have RSs that say the organization supports gun rights.  I've found (but have yet to post) sources that say the right to arms is a civil right.  We also have sources that say the NRA is a civil rights organization due to it's support of the 2nd A.  Springee (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was merely providing a counterexample to your argument that it is a civil rights org. My search of RS finds a few stating that the NRA “calls itself” such (as do some white supremacist groups). I can’t find any decent sources that claim this themselves. (And no, I’m not comparing the NRA to white supremacists. Just using reductio to illustrate the problem with self-description.) O3000 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe your are misconstruing our role here. It seems to me we have two questions... [i.e., 1. whether] the 2ndA) is a civil right [and 2. whether] the NRA is active in protecting that right &mdash; No, we don't.  We (i.e., Wikipedia editors) have only one question: how do we apply what reliable sources say to WP:CATDEF.  You seem to be confusing Truth (as you interpret it) and what logic demands a civil rights org is (or ought to be) defined as, with what reliable sources say.  It is not for us to logic our way to a definition of Civil Rights Organization based on what we argue here, but to apply WP:CATDEF as best we can to what others (RS's) say.  What we think doesn't count. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mathglot makes a good point: We shouldn't be interpreting whether or not the NRA fits the definition of a civils rights organization, since that would be WP:SYNTH. We need to be following what the reliable sources say. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to include, you can argue CATDEF all you like. Onus is on you to change current consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind this consensus was over 2 years ago. We should really be more focused on what the sources say instead of trying claim something in Wikipedia's voice via an arbitrary vote-count. DN (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What has changed since then? Springee (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A shitload of people got shot.  Volunteer Marek   21:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a red herring. Springee (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. What it means is that how editors and sources view the NRA might have very well changed in the past two years, in the light of all the mass shootings that have taken place. You're more likely to get away with a self-congratulatory claim about being "a civil rights organization" when people are not really paying attention than when you're trying to make excuses ("stay in your own lane") for mass shootings that occurring monthly.  Volunteer Marek   21:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost weekly honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It was a while ago, but it is still the standing consensus that did have decent participation with a snow close. Consensus can change obviously and I would of course be fine with a new RFC. But age of the previous does not invalidate it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If they just want to include opinions by certain groups that consider the NRA to be a CRO in the body of the article, it just has to include the context of "in the opinion of so and so" along with the citation of RS. DN (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently the instances in the article say things like "the NRA claims". They don't state in Wiki voice that "the NRA is".  That should address the discussion here.  Springee (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. The claim is that it is the “oldest...”. This text suggests that it is a CRO and that only the age is disputed. O3000 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps we should discuss adding a RS that disputes the notion that the NRA is a civil rights or discuss a change in phrasing to address what some see as an ambiguity. I don't see it as ambiguous given the sentence immediately before says the NRA is the one making the complete claim.  Springee (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence says the NRA is claiming to be the oldest. That assumes it's agreed that it is one. The assumption is cemented by saying that there may be older ones. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could it be edited to say "The NRA claims to be a CRO, aditionally, it claims to be the oldest CRO..." or something along those lines? DN (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Objective3000, this is a possible read but the quoted NRA statement includes "oldest" and "civil rights organization". Additionally, every other instance that talks about NRA as a civil rights organization includes a clear statement that this is the NRA's claim. It's not like this is a stand alone claim just in this section of the article. DN, I'm not sure I like that exact phrasing but I think that would be a good direction.  We do have some statements that suggest others do agree so I don't think we should present it as if only the NRA accepts the validity of the claim. Springee (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could we put on hold the question of how old of a civil rights organization the NRA is until we get this current matter worked out? One can objectively see that the NRA is older than the NAACP.  One can also objectively see that the NRA wasn't much interested in civil rights until quite some time after the NAACP was founded.  So, any material we put into the article on this will need to hash this out.  For instance: "While the NRA is an older organization than the NAACP, the NAACP has been advocating for civil rights longer than the NRA has.". -- Frotz(talk) 00:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So far I still don't see a consensus via RS that says the NRA is even considered a CRO. 2A may be a civil right but that doesn't automatically make the NRA a CRO. That's pure WP:SYNTH. The NRA appears to be more like a trade organization than anything resembling a CRO DN (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC).
 * Even though I think the NRA is definiately advocating for a civil right, I would agree. Currently each time the civil rights organization claim is mentioned it includes something to the effect that the "NRA says..."  I think with a bit more work we could address the ambiguity associated with the material that was removed/restored.  Perhaps a simple sentence saying the claim (regardless of the "oldest" part) is both supported and refuted by outside sources (we have examples of both).  That would address the ambiguity without needing to edit the current sentence.  My only concern with editing the current sentence to eliminate ambiguity is doing it in a way that isn't awkward or make it look like no one else agrees with the NRA's claim.  Springee (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * overwhelmingly rejected. Would that it were true. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No: NRA is not a civil rights org as the term is commonly understood. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the NRA is "not a civil rights org as commonly understood". Fact: Gun ownership and use is an individual civil right from the beginning of the United States as can be seen in Federalist No. 46 among other writing.  Fact: This right was confirmed by District_of_Columbia_v._Heller while smacking down the notion of gun rights being collective rights.  Fact: The right to own and use firearms is further defined as a civil right in other documents and decisions mentioned by other editors.  Fact: The NRA advocates for the exercise of this right and against its infringement.  You might as well quibble over whether a business that produces bread can be called a bakery.  -- Frotz(talk) 00:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I mean other than it certainly is. Perhaps it's not one as you understand it? PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment about refactoring editors: Per Evade (not per Deny but that is a technicality) comments made by blocked editors can be removed but they are not required to be removed. Per WP:RTP removal of comments after others have replied to then should be done with caution as it can change the discussion when editors read it later. This removal [] should have not initially occurred per RTP. A strike through was sufficient in this case. I'm posting here so editors can follow the removed material. Springee (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BANREVERT "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." It seems like you would have preferred that the editor be taken to Arbitration Enforcement instead of simply removing their comment. Why create all this unnecessary drama? - MrX 🖋 20:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been down this road many times with the various HughD socks. If no one has replied delete away.  If others have replied then consider the rules of refactoring.  Evade doesn't say the edits must be removed.  RTP does say we should be careful when the comments in question are already part of the discussion.  If you didn't want drama you could have left the strike through restoration.  I don't appreciate that my comment to O3000 lost context when you removed an edit O3000 replied to. Hence I restored with a strike out. Springee (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not doing the TBannned editor any favors. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Membership estimate by Pew
Remove the following from the Membership section per WP:UNDUE and WP:SELFPUB:


 * "A 2017 Pew Research Center Study found that more than 14 million Americans consider themselves NRA members, above the real membership number of 5 million. This may be attributed to the fact that the NRA has millions more of Americans who support them and will tell pollsters they are members, even when they are not. In other cases, it could be that their membership has lapsed and for others, they might consider a family member's membership part of their own.[157][158]" - MrX 🖋 12:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Object to removal. The information is also here []. Springee (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong under the heading "Membership" in a serious encyclopedia article. Even the NRA thinks is nonsense. WP:NOTSPECULATION applies. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the full removal, but per above discussions perhaps change "real membership" to "claimed membership". PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aww. That's a clever icon. Thanks User:XYZtSpace.  G M G  talk  15:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I reverted your edit for several reasons. First, the change was changed here. Second, the Pew material is mentioned by several sources on the subject and is useful context for the discussion. Springee (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "the change was changed here". Huh? Anyway, in light of your pushback, I have attempted a compromise that simply states the Pew survey anomaly and the NRA's explanation, properly sourced with a secondary source. I still think the material is not encyclopedia, and would support removing it entirely.- MrX 🖋 13:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I entered that with my phone. Regardless, I'm happy with your changes.  Springee (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, that should have been "challenged".- MrX 🖋 13:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Pew study doesn't actually include the "14 million" figure or any of the analysis regarding why the numbers seem to differ, so it probably shouldn't be cited. It appears that the NRA extrapolated the percentages themselves. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hill article says 14 million. Springee (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's extrapolated (and maybe we should clarify that in the article). They obviously didn't survey 14 million people.- MrX 🖋 13:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I meant "calculated". My point is that nothing in that section is directly supported by the Pew survey, so it probably shouldn't be included as a primary-source reference.
 * I see what you're saying. So who made the extrapolation (or calculation). Was it the NRA?- MrX 🖋 14:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Both the 14 million figure and the bit about family members/ lapsed memberships originate from the NRA source . –dlthewave ☎ 14:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The authors of The Hill article don't credit the number to the NRA but rather to the Pew study. If you read the full Pew report (linked via the Pew link) they say 19% of gun owners so I'm assuming it's calculated.  Either way, the wiki article doesn't source it to the NRA. Springee (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , to what extent do you think the Pew study has to support the text to be included? The linked study is the one that The Hill cites as providing the 14 million number.  What about including the 19% of gun owners which is specifically what the Pew study said?  Springee (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to be precise about which statements are attributed to each source. Pew can be used to support 19%. It is wrong to say that their report states 14 million; it appears that The Hill falsely attributed that number to Pew and I think it's safe to say that they lifted that statistic from the NRA press release without fact-checking it. Pew also did not make the comparison between the NRA's reported membership and the membership levels reported in the survey. –dlthewave ☎ 18:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should not repeat information that we know not to be true. Actually, the 14 million number should probably be attributed to the NRA. - MrX 🖋 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How do we know that information to be not true? The HuffPo [] also includes the claim.  Unless we can show that the conversion from 19% of US gun owners to 14 million is wrong we cannot say it is wrong.  We can only say that Pew literally say X and The Hill quoted it as Y.  My quick check shows a low of 10.5 and a high of 13.9 using some old data).  That's 252 million adults in the US 2017 data.  Estimates for what percent have guns varies from 22-29% per a 2013 study [].  Pew said 19% considered themselves NRA members.  So the 14 million number is in the range of possible and shouldn't be declared "false".  At least two RSs have repeated the 14 million number and my estimates show it is possible based on the Pew study.  Springee (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that "14 million" is false; I'm just saying that it didn't come from Pew. The report only mentions 19% and does not include the total gun ownership number that would be required in order to calculate the number of NRA members. If the primary source doesn't say it, The Hill shouldn't be saying that they say it. I'm not sure how "19%" can be quoted as "14 million". –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Pew study should be included as it is the source for the Hill article and could be helpful to our readers if they want to learn more. I do not care if you think the Hill should or should not be saying something. That is their call as a RS to decide what is correct. PackMecEng (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not typically include the primary source in these cases, especially when it does not directly support any statement in the article. The secondary source is sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We do that all the time. Generally when giving info from a secondary source on a study. In those cases we would also link the study in case the reader would like to see it.
 * My concern is that the citing the Pew study would imply that they are the source of the 14 million number. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The source for the Hill was the Pew study. Again it is common to cite the primary source that the secondary source is talking about. PackMecEng (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with the current version which clearly states which numbers are sourced to whom. –dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Self reported membership numbers
I've reverted an edit from the info box suggesting the membership numbers are fabricated. Some critics might claim the numbers aren't true but such accusations shouldn't be in the info box without absolute proof. Adding a comment that suggests the NRA is lying in the infobox is WP:weasel (also MOS:alleged) We have only Mother Jones, hardly an unbiased source, making the claim. Editors supporting this please justify this change. Springee (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(Ec) It is not weasel, it does not say they are lying, it just says the numbers are self reported and unverified. You are aware this page is under discretionary sanctions so you should not be edit warring over this. In fact there is sources that question the membership numbers. . I recall reading they have given away memberships with gun purchases (which may include creating memberships for people who may or may not want to join), failed to purge their member roll of dead people (your lifetime membership carries on in the afterlife?), counted expired members etc. Since there is so much media questioning the validity of 5 million for years, a sudden million member increase seems even more suspect. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And responding to your added assertion that only Mother Jones questions it - either you are trying to mislead us or you can't google "NRA membership numbers" and read sources. I only included the first three media hits, there are more. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LP, let's not get into accusations of bad faith editing regarding the NRA. First, the article lists only 1 source that makes the claim that the NRA's numbers are inflated.  You offered 3 references but the WP doesn't say one way or the other.  MJ is highly biased and HP is likely the same but you link doesn't work.  Regardless of what you have read, it is very much a weasel thing to add words that make it sound like the self reported numbers are widely dismissed in the infobox.  And yes, an honest assessment of that change (and the edit note that accompanied its addition) made it clear this was intended to show the NRA's claims were to be doubted.  The membership section of the text has information that both supports and questions the claim.  That is sufficient.  Springee (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We can't just post such a questionable number. The 5 million is very debatable (questioned for years) so where the heck did they find a million new members all of a sudden? Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Attribution is needed and the way it's currently written in the infobox seems pretty reasonable. Bullet 2 of WP:YESPOV applies. - MrX 🖋 01:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please find any other example where we have put such weasel material after a self reported number. So far we have only one source (and I will assume HP if the link is fixed) which is hardly known for a NPOV on gun related issues.  If editors feel something beyond the "self reported" statement is needed then add a link to the section in the text.  Springee (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Newsweek is not convinced. The data in this article lays out how they evidently pull membership numbers from thin air. Legacypac (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We should put "self-reported dubious" ref 1, 2, 3 as lots of major media outlets have reported their numbers are questionable over the years. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are repeating old arguments. Again, "Self reported" or "self reported, see [link to text section]" is sufficient.  The material added was weasel.  Springee (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We appear to have had a similar discussion just a few months back []. We had a consensus for the content then but now we seem to want to change things based on a fly by edit of questionable neutrality. Lets get some other editor's inputs. I'm going to hold off tagging the edit with "weasel" so others can reply. Yes, some sources with a history of bias against the NRA have claimed the numbers are false but no solid evidence is presented and we also have RS sources that support/accept the NRA's numbers. Springee (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Read the Newsweek article. They quote ex NRA employees who flat out say the numbers are padded and how. This is not complicated. I'm a Canadian with no dog in this debate. I've provided high quality sources that cast serious doubt on the numbers. Where is your sources supporting that the NRA is not pulling numbers from thin air? You have a membership audit? How about a percise quoted number at a point in time, not a fuzzy round number. How about a consistent number not controdicted by other things the NRA puts out? In the absense of solid sources to the contrary we need to go with "dubious" according to the good sources. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should ask the brand new editor who joined Wikipedia a few minutes before reverting my edit. - MrX 🖋 01:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is sock like but perhaps we shouldn't undo it until we actually have proof?[]. Perhaps this IP editor from earlier today added an account[].  Springee (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * First, your claim that you are just a Canadian with no dog in the fight doesn't jive with your history in this area. In the article we have a Pew source that does support the numbers.  Regardless all we have are accusations made shortly after a mass shooting when the typical news cycle rules lost of anti-NRA stories.  After quite a few discussions we have a membership section in the article which discusses the issue.  No one is claiming the NRA membership rolls have been audited.  What I'm saying is the article shouldn't use weasel text to suggest in wikivoice that the stated number is a lie.  The infobox says "self reported".  The text includes a discussion of the accusation of smaller than claimed membership.  Why are we discussing this again?  Springee (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your history is pretty clear Springee. Where are these sources Springee? Sure sources report what NRA claims but where are the ones that Support the claims with data?  Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and so is yours. Here you blatantly ignore WP:OR to invent anti-NRA material [].  The Pew material is already in the article.  Springee (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Any editor following that link will see you are misrepresenting my editing Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears some editors are trying to justify there opinions and there point of view in lieu of meaningful improvements. Trying to force such controversy into the infobox has the optics of editor bullying. I would also advise such editors to try and appreciate that they are not judge jury and executioner. Mikeuralot (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * heck of a start on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet you reverted the editor with an accusation. Springee (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks for pointing out I was correct :) Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Citing a self-published source is often appropriate for non-contentious claims about the subject, such as undisputed "official" membership numbers that are often published by charities. In this case, however, simply presenting the NRA's numbers in the infobox (even with the "self-reported" caveat) does not represent the breadth of prominent RS-published views and therefore is not NPOV. The infobox should be designed such that readers can pick up accurate facts without reading further into the article, so it is appropriate and necessary to briefly explain the fact that the numbers are disputed and that they are estimates rounded to the nearest million, not official membership statistics. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We have not shown this is a widespread believe or that there is actual proof the NRA is publishing false numbers. We have gone through this content before, we don't have a consensus for this change so it should be reverted back to the long standing version. , your recent edit contained no reason for a reversion.  Reverting a sock editor would be a legitimate reason for reversion but that should be included in the edit justification.  Please modify the edit to include a reason. []  Springee (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't and don't see a reason to have to state the obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a contentious topic and subject to DS. It would be good to state why you reverted the new editor.  If you think they are a sock that's fine, say so.  If you don't agree with the change, say so.  Springee (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should stay listed as unverified unless there are good independent reliable sources that can show it. Their numbers have been always been contentious so unverified is proper without breaking NPOV. ContentEditman (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When are self reported things like this ever listed as "verified"? If they were verified would they be self reported?  Springee (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm glad to see discussion here at the talk page. Unfortunately, people were edit warring and reverting each other while this discussion went on. I have locked the page for 24 hours to stop the edit warring. Meanwhile please continue your discussion here, staying civil and not accusing each other of things, and hopefully reaching a consensus or compromise wording by the time the protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We have consensus except for Springee (two reverts) and a brand new never edited before acct that appeared (two reverts). Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How many reverts did you add? More than one.  Also, local consensus doesn't trump MOS.  Springee (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you using a sock? There is only one other account here pushing your POV and the brand new account showed up after you reverted twice. I restored once and then reverted the very first edit by this new acct - no one will fault me for that when the acct looks "sock like" Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Update - sock confirmed as Springee's good friend 72bikers - blocked . There is half of the edit warring solved User:MelanieN Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you had the common sense to strike your accusation of bad faith. [] Please strike the next one.  Springee (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No need. I correctly reverted a sockpuppet - you made excuses for them. MrX got him blocked. You and 72bikers trash talked me on his talkpage after 72bikers banned me from posting there leaving me no way to defend myself. You have no problems saying untrue things about me and therefore my tolerance with your POV pushing and general bad behavior is pretty low. Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But 72bikers wasn't the editor here. You said he was but... well you are wrong. If you can cite the untrue things I've said please do. I've cited where you fought to keep anti NRA SYN material in an article. Springee (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes he was. Not only did he violate his topic ban; he used a sock puppet to do so. At this point, we seem to have solid consensus for the edit under discussion. - MrX 🖋 12:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, if you read the whole discussion the sick that was here was yet another HughD sock. As for the edit under discussion we still have an issue is WP:Weasel that may need uninvolved editor review given the clear editorial preference of all the editors involved in this discussion (think of it as a party line vote). Springee (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I literally linked to an admin edit identifying Mikeuralot as a sock of 72bikers. Not to be harsh, but I think you're confused. You are the only editor who seems to think there is WEASEL problem with the edit under discussion. Consensus is not unanimity.- MrX 🖋 12:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to the topic: what is the best way to show this questioned number 6 million. How about "self-reported dubious" ref 1, 2, 3 Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "dubious"... well you were worried about SYN so long as it was anti-NRA why would I expect you would care about WEASEL or ACCUSE? Springee (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post and Mother Jones magazine suggest that nobody knows the real membership numbers (except the NRA of course) but clues from tax reporting suggest that membership numbers since around 2004 to the present are mostly flat (except after high-profile mass shootings when they go up), that the NRA is increasingly getting revenue from large donations and possibly from Russian sources. This suggests that describing NRA membership numbers as unverified or self-reported seems reasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And Pew suggests up to 14 million people consider themselves members per the link in the article. Springee (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that this article says that, but I can't verify it in the source. Do you know where in the source it says that 14 million people consider themselves members? - MrX 🖋 12:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just say its self reported or remove it from the infobox all together. Explaining "dubious" needs more context than an infobox can provide, and if it's really that relevant, then it can be explained further, or explained period in prose. Alternatively, we could find another actual estimate and give a range, but the WaPo and MJ sources above don't actually estimate anything, they just read tea leaves around the edges and make generic guesses of directionality.   G M G  talk  12:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should use "dubious" in the infobox, but perhaps we could say self-reported and add an explanatory footnote.- MrX 🖋 12:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Self-reported seems like a reasonable compromise. The dubious is a non-starter, MrX what would you put in the footnote? PackMecEng (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We can simply say that the membership numbers are unverified and self-reported, and that estimates range from 3.4 million to 6 million (or whatever numbers are reported in sources). The 14 million number should not be noted, since it is sampled survey information from people who seem to think they are members but are not.- MrX 🖋 13:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, how about that and like Springee suggested add a link to the appropriate section as well? PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For reasons of SYNC we shouldn't add explanatory text to the infobox or the footnote. Instead we should link to the membership section.  I would be OK with a statement in the footnote like, "this value has been disputed [see membership|link]".  Springee (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am just not a fan of using disputed, I think it implies the wrong thing. I do like linking to the section for a full explanation of what is going on though. The nice thing about the note reference is it does not clog up the info box so something like "Estimates range from 3.4 to 6 million see membership" wouldn't be to bad. The user would have to hover over the ref to see the message. PackMecEng (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine as long as we retain "self-reported" in the infobox. Other editors may have different thoughts on this.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that would be keeping the self-reported and ditching ", claim unverified as of 2018" and the dubious claim. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I object to using "self-reported" with no caveats. Most organizations reliably self-report precise membership numbers, so we would need something else to describe the fact that the NRA does not regularly publish precise numbers and that the estimates given by their representatives are considered questionable. This also would not be a compromise since "6 million, self reported" is the long-standing version that has raised objections. –dlthewave ☎ 13:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that the numbers are being questioned by sources that are hostile to the NRA (MJ, HP) and at times when the NRA is facing a lot of political and public flack for their gun rights stance. Springee (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't remember what I never knew in the first place. Cite please for MJ and HP being hostile toward NRA? Thanks. - MrX 🖋 13:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * How about "self reported"(hot linked to Membership section) or "self reported(footnote that hotlinks with "see Membership")? Springee (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if also include a brief explanatory note as suggested above.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see cites for these large news outlets being bostile to the NRA too. Newsweek is the best source I've seen. They lay out how the NRA lies about membership numbers and quote named ex NRA employees on how. We need something stronger than "self reported" we need to suggest the number is likely not true somehow with refs. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Any numbers you get from an independent source on NRA membership are certain to be lower than numbers coming from the NRA. Why?  Would you be honest with a stranger who asks you if you belong to an organization that is constantly derided as a terrorist organization by prominent media personalities and politicians?  Would you be honest with strangers who ask about your politically-incorrect valuables?  Roll this back a few decades.  Suppose it's 1955.  A pollster telephones you or approaches you on the street and asks if you're homosexual.  If you are homosexual, will you be honest?  If independent sources on membership numbers are mentioned at all, they will need to be accompanied by a strong caveat of this motivation to lie to pollsters.  -- Frotz(talk)
 * No, the RS that say the membership numbers are inflated are analyzing the NRA's own magazine circulation numbers, tax filings, mismatched statememts by the NRA and its spokespersons, and quoting former employees. None of the questions are based on polling. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. What do you have?  -- Frotz(talk) 04:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A bunch of refs like, what have you brought to the discussion? Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm advising caution when dealing with a topic that's been subject to good deal of exaggeration and rancor. That Newsweek article relies an awful lot on thoroughly discredited people, for instance, Josh Sugarmann. Then there are unverified quotes (David Gross).  Then there are attempts to extrapolate membership numbers from accounting information followed by a statement that such techniques are impossible to make work.  Then there are discussions of magazine circulation numbers, how dubious the value of using those as a telltale, and a caution that members opting for digital-only subscriptions tosses a wrench in the calculations.  In conclusion, it's not a good source of much of anything.  What else do you have?  -- Frotz(talk) 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The Newsweek article is not as clear cut as LP claims. Yes, it does raise questions but it doesn't present rock solid information.  Part of the article takes rather innocuous things and tries to cast them in a negative light.  The question of purging members who have recently died and not immediately canceling the membership of members who are 1 month overdue doesn't seem like a clear cut case of deception.  To show this is somehow an intent to deceive I think they would have to prove that this is out of the ordinary.  The local children's museum doesn't automatically kick members off the rolls when they die.  Yes, I agree that such practices would inflate the numbers but by how much and is the intent really to decieve or simply because it would take a lot of time and effort to verify that all the extended members (lifetime, multi-year etc) are still living.  It's not like the NRA would be notified by some state authority or next of kin.  So what about the 1 month extension.  Sounds like a grace period and is hardly unique to the NRA.  Well, I hate to say it but I have missed paying my auto insurance on time.  Fortunately my insurance company decided that was probably an oversight on my part and coverage wasn't instantly terminated.  Other parts of the article actually talk about how methods like estimation using magazine deliveries and revenue are hardly conclusive.  Basically the Newsweek article doesn't prove that the NRA's numbers are false.  It's reasonably balanced (once they got past the first few paragraphs which didn't address membership and included the highly questionable 97% of members want claim) in showing that some have accused the NRA of false numbers but their evidence isn't conclusive and the actual facts are hard to prove.  Finally, when the article gets down to the point, they note that the membership size isn't debated trivia, it matters because it suggests political clout.  If the membership rolls aren't as big as claimed then the political power of the NRA may be less than claimed.  However, as the Pew research showed, the number of people who consider themselves to be NRA members is about 14 million.  Thus even if the actual member rolls are say only 4.5 million vs the 5 million claimed, the NRA may have sway over 8 million voters even though not all are members.  Anyway, the Newsweek article isn't a solid source to claim the NRA's numbers are wrong, only that some people question them.  Springee (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a Wikipedia editor saying that these discrepancies don't matter and a reliable source (Newsweek) saying that they do. We follow the reliable source.
 * We're talking about the accuracy and verifiability of the numbers. It doesn't matter whether or not there is an intentional exaggeration. Newsweek also points out that the NRA does not regularly publish their membership statistics and they do not allow verification by outside entitites. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I said and since you are claiming Newsweek says they do matter show the quote. Springee (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * _•A bunch of RS say the member numbers are highly questionable. The NRA neither publishes anything like percise data, allows any outside verification or demonstrates consistency in the numbers reported. Springee just dismisses all the RS with a waive of the hand and defends the improbable and inconsistent. Why is he allowed to edit in an area with Discretionary Sanctions exactly? Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should open an ANI. Else, WP:CIVIL applies even to you. Springee (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about whether or not there is intentional exaggeration. All I'm saying is that nothing in that article backs up your claims.  -- Frotz(talk) 04:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So are we good with "6 million (self-reported)" and a note saying "Estimates range from 3.4 to 6 million see membership"? PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that so long as we include an updated refernce to support the 6 million part. It might be good to have a footnote talking about the date ranges for those estimates since I don't think they were all at the same time. Springee (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Year of the Shooting of Philando Castile
This article seems to incorrectly state that the Philando Castile shooting occurred in 2017. The shooting actually happened in July 2016. Am I somehow missing something? It seems that the year should be changed to 2016

DiscoStu42 (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 22:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible illegal campaign coordination between Trump and NRA
This has been touched on before and is apparently resurfacing. I think the material currently in the article should be updated accordingly.


 * Documents Point to Illegal Campaign Coordination Between Trump and NRA
 * NRA, Trump Campaign Illegally Coordinated Election Ads, Charges FEC Complaint
 * Trump Campaign, NRA Illegally Coordinated Ads, Groups Allege
 * Point to Illegal Campaign Coordination Between Trump and the NRA

- MrX 🖋 13:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to add. There is no proof so DUE needs to be considered.  Also, The Trace is an anti-gun "news" agency set up as part of Michael Bloomberg's anti gun activism.  It shouldn't be treated as a RS.  That shouldn't matter given the number of other sources available. Springee (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Edits to the article need to make it clear that these are accusations made by a gun control advocacy group in a complaint to the FEC. The news stories are repeating the contents of the complaint. I think adding to the 2016 section that a complaint was filled and it accused collaboration via coordinated media buys would work. Springee (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Trace may not be a news agency that Wikipedia would normally quote, but Mother Jones is, and they are reporting the same thing. I think we should add something, keeping it brief and making it clear that this is only an allegation. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We would have to attribute it to Mother Jones if we use them. Are there any sources out there that we could use that we would not have to attribute? PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Bloomberg source wouldn't need to be attributed. There's also a Fortune article, Trump Campaign and NRA Illegally Coordinated During Presidential Election, Watchdog Groups Say, that could be used. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup I think those two would do. We would not have to attribute to them, though we would have to attribute the claim to the two watchdogs making it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Those two sources, IIRC, are stating what the complaint alleges. They are not independently verifying the complaint.  Springee (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is what I mean, the complaint would have to attributed to the groups since they are not verified yet. PackMecEng (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

With the arrest and cooperation deal of the russian spy, this is likely to get more play. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The NRA membership claim
They do have 6 million members please do not lie Gun Boyyz (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think you know this subject matter better than me. Gun Boyyz, if you have no reliable secondary sources to offer, please don't edit that bit of the article. And if you don't understand why we'd need reliable secondary sources, please follow the links in the template I'm about to put on your user page--links that will explain to you what Wikipedia is and how it works. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can say they claim to have 6 million members, but we cannot use an SPS for a claim of fact, only opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Problem we have now is that the lede and infobox disagree, using two different pages in the NRA site as sources. The source for the lede is probably more recent, but probably less official. Both are self-claimed. I don't have an opinion on which to use (and they're probably both incorrect); but consistency would be nice. O3000 (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We make it clear it is an unsubstantiated self claim, not seeing an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree we definitely need all instances in the article to agree. As for which number to use, I would suggest we use what ever seems like the most definiative statement by the NRA.  So a statement on the website would be more definitive vs say a statement made in an interview or public presentation.  Thus if the 6 million comes from a presentation quote while the 5.x million comes from an "about the NRA" statement on the website, let's use the latter.  I think we need to be careful with statements like "unsubstantiated" in the text without additional context.  As was discussed above the primary location for this information is the membership section of the article.  In the info box we had discussed using a footnote after the self reported statement.  The footnote would then link to the membership discussion.  I think the same could be applied to the opening paragraph. Springee (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. O3000 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that "about the NRA" is the better source. Interestingly, that page states "nearly 5 million" in the body and "more than 5 million" in the blurb that appears at the bottom of all NRA.org pages. There's support for the footnote from all sides, so I think it would be appropriate to add one after "self reported" with the clarification that the NRA does not publish official membership statistics, does not allow others to verify the numbers that they do provide, and that the numbers have been questioned. –dlthewave ☎ 14:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well despite a rough start I think we are reaching a consensus. Hats off to all!  Does anyone have a suggestion for the text of the footnote and which membership statement we should use? Springee (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well suggested text

"The NRA have claimed a membership of between 5 and 6 million" (as per the source).Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted a change to the lead that added comments about the membership numbers not being confirmed. As was discussed above this should be handled with a footnote. Springee (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion relates to a footnote for the infobox 5 or 6 million, not the lede. But you know that already as an active contributor to the discussion. Stop being disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to squint really hard to think that we only meant the weasel phrase shouldn't be in the info box but was ok in the lead. Perhaps you could be productive and implement the Fitbit change rather than making bad faith accusations. Springee (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Guys I don't want to have to full-protect this page again. Then I have to remember to come back and reset the semiprotection in however many days I set the protection for, and I have to monitor the talk page for edit requests and any consensus developing, and I just really don't want to do it to be honest. I don't care enough about this topic to put that kind of energy in. Can you please discuss things first and stop reverting each other? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey, NRA membership statement in lead
Should we use the same phasing and footnote when describing the NRA's membership numbers on the lead as is being used in the info box? Springee (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Seems an obvious alignment with the consensus way to handle the information. Springee (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a silly question. We don't have the space constraints of the infobox in the lede text. We can explain. The text that is there is fine. Stop changing things that are fine just because the text does not fit the NRA narrative. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - this question isn't especially informative. I assume it refers to this sentence stating that the NRA membership figures "cannot be independently confirmed"? That statement cites two reliable sources which directly question the accuracy of that number. I'm a little puzzled by the complaint here: the claim is well sourced and relevant. I can't think of any policy-based reason to use the exact same phrasing in the article text that we use in the info-box. What exactly is the objection? [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 21:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase "cannot be independently confirmed" is Weasel as it puts an implied accusation in Wikipedia voice. The EAA also self reports membership numbers but we don't say their numbers can't be confirmed. Ignoring questions of weight for inclusion in the lead, what we have is a few sources questioning the membership number. That's fine.  We can just say NRA claim X.  Some sources question this number (link to membership section).  That sort of phrasing preserves neutral voice. Springee (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no question about whether or not the number is independently verified. It isn't. In addition to the currently cited sources, The Washington Post's Factchecker, MotherJones, Time, USA Today, Business Insider, The BBC all mention that the number is uncertain and unverifiable, so I'm really not sure why Wikipedia wouldn't do the same. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 00:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to add similar words to Experimental Aircraft Association provide the cites that question their membership numbers. Legacypac (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Lets review those sources. WP: That is a 5 year old article.  It makes basically the same arguments that Newsweek made.  They looked at the number of magazines delivered.  That article also ended with, "(Reminder: One Pinocchio indicates omission or exaggeration but no outright falsehood.)"  I will grant this is an independent questioning vs simply saying "source X said".  MJ, a source that is hostile to the NRA concentrated only on the gap between magazine deliveries and claimed membership numbers.  The Time article doesn't seem to really criticize the numbers at all.  Early on the article includes this quote, "But outside the gun control debate in Washington, membership in the NRA and gun rights groups across the country, which includes more than five million Americans, is spiking, according to people familiar with the numbers.  The USA Today story is about a subject that absolutely should be in the this article, it's about the state of NY pressuring banks to not work with the NRA.  Even the ACLU has raised first amendment concerns with that one.[]  BTW, that USA Today article only says this about the membership numbers, "For years, the NRA has boasted about its large membership, which it claims to be about 5 million, though actual figures have never been released. "  BI is like the USA Today article and just says NRA says 5 million but doesn't release the numbers.  The BBC provides an example of a reasonable way to report the information here.  It simply states what the NRA claims and that others put the number lower and accuse the NRA of inflation, "The association claimed that membership surged to close to five million people in response to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook school, but some analysts put the figure at closer to three million. The organisation has been accused of artificially inflating the figure."  Springee (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point: other methods of estimating the NRAs membership numbers may be unreliable, but it is a fact that they their membership claims can't be independently verified. No one disputes that this is a fact. It is also potentially worth mentioning that some have suggested the number is exaggerated, but - however we do it - we need to communicate to readers that they should take this figure with a grain of salt. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then lets go with that"...but it has been accused on inflating its membership numbers."Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose and keep the current wording or its functional equivalent: According to the NRA, it has nearly 5 million members as of December 2018, although that figure cannot be independently confirmed. A more thorough discussion of the discrepancies/unverifiability should also be added to the "Membership" section. Unlike other organizations, the NRA's self-published numbers do not meet the WP:ABOUTSELF requirement that "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", so it is entirely appropriate to include the views of reliable sources on the matter. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you be OK with more neutral phrasing? Though I don't think it should be in the lead, if we are going to have it there I think phrasing stating that the NRA claim has been challenged is neutral.  Saying something is unverified in Wikivoice suggests that it is untrue.  Either it is untrue (ie we have actual proof) or we just have some sources that say it isn't.  Again, saying in WP:Wikivoice that it's unverified could be applied to any self reported claim and I think in every case we would say it would suggest to the reader that the claim isn't true.  What about something like this:
 * ''According to the NRA, it has nearly 5 million members as of December 2018 though the number of members has been question.[Footnote to membership section]]
 * This still makes it clear that third parties have questioned the claimed without using an expression of doubt in Wikivoice (a violation of MOS:ALLEGED). Springee (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the sentence is well sourced. The NRA will not let anyone verify their numbers. The only other org I can quickly think of with a similar issue is Church of Scientology. Of course different sources use similar points to say the member numbers are likely inflated. The Newsweek source is the best I've seen complete with ex employee quotes confirming the inflation. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a sound argument once you add a bit of common sense. To allow someone to check their numbers would result in sharing member lists. Do you honestly think members would be happy to have the NRA turn their names over to the likes of Mother Jones?  The Newsweek article also included experts who explained why some of the methods used to guess the actual membership numbers may not work. Springee (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, an accounting firm could audit the list without releasing the names to the media. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, reliable sources have reported the lack of outside verification. This gives it WP:WEIGHT and we can include it in our article without working out the finer points of how such verification would work. Remember, the lack of verification isn't the only sticking point: the NRA doesn't regularly publish its membership statistics or give numbers more precise than the nearest half-million. This fact is easily verifiable and not easily contested. –dlthewave ☎ 13:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do the sources mention that out of the blue or only in context of noting that some have questioned the number? Context matters.  Contrary to what LP might imply, I agree that a number of sources have said the NRA doesn't release it's membership list for 3rd party verification (hardly something unique to the NRA) but to state that in the lead without the context of the articles is a NPOV issue.  It's also not clear how much weight should be given to this issue in the lead vs the body.  A more productive use of our efforts would be to propose text and find a compromise version here.  I gave it a go already.  Let's build on that. Springee (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per and .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral I am in two minds, it is clear this is only their numbers, and has not been verified. At the same time it is also OR to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources say the numbers are


 * Oppose - This would be an unnecessary constraint with no upside that I can see.- MrX 🖋 18:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose soibangla (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian spying
New info came out yesterday and is likely to keep coming out. Reverting additions of new info citing concensus is not appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The new information does not pertain to the NRA. It may be relevant to the Russian 2016 election article but it adds nothing new here. Springee (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not relevant to this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

, your edit had been challenged and currently we don't have consensus for inclusion. Please justify the additional material. What you added is not about the NRA. This material was extensively discussed a few months back. Springee (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You challenged it because you assert it is not about the NRA. As I explained in the edit summary, the WSJ confirms it is about the NRA, and I provided the source to show it. soibangla (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The additional material you added is not about the NRA. The source may mention the NRA but what you added doesn't. Springee (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It plainly is about the NRA. The NRA is a central party to this entire matter, as extensive reporting over many months has clearly shown, and this particular edit is also about the NRA, as the WSJ source clearly indicates. soibangla (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The WSJ article was from months back. We already discussed and covered that.  Please see the archives for the consensus discussion.  The material you added today was not about the NRA.  It had no new information regarding the NRA and this news. Springee (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You continue to falsely insist "The material you added today was not about the NRA." In fact it plainly is, and it is entirely relevant to the paragraph to which it was added.soibangla (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What does the material you added have to do with the NRA. That she was trying to cultivate connections via the NRA was already covered.  What new NRA related information did you add? Springee (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to further clarify my point here. The NRA is involved in that Butina saw the NRA as a gateway to contact GOP leaders.  To that extent the material is clearly NRA related.  However, the material you added wasn't about additional NRA actions/involvement etc.  It didn't reveal anything new about the NRA's passive or active involvement.  I presume this is why  agreed that it wasn't relevant to this article.  The new content was more about what Butina did with a connection.  So the additional information was not about the NRA.  It didn't say, "the NRA offered Butina names and numbers" or "the NRA agreed to funnel money from Butina to X".  You may disagree but and I'm sure we can argue about where the line of relevant lies but please don't act like I'm the only editor who felt this way.  Of course we could ping the editors who were involved in the previous discussions if we want more opinions.  Since Mudwater has joined via an edit I'm going to assume that we are now at 3:2 in favor of the new material and leave it at that.  Please understand that WP:CONSENSUS applies here.  If you add content and it is removed then you must have consensus for restoration.  At the time you restored the material there was no new consensus as it was 2 editors against and two editors for the new content.  That it a pretty clear no-consensus which means policy says revert to last stable version.  Absent some reason to come back I'm done with this discussion.  Springee (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes it is clearly about the NRA (unnamed gun rights org) and it is cited. The NRA must be so proud of your Wikipedia based advocacy efforts Springee. Do they give you free membership at least for your efforts ? Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you keep making comments like this I will take them to ANI where you will risk bring blocked again. Springee (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is ever-increasing reason to believe that you should not be allowed to edit this article. soibangla (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you better come up with a good reason otherwise please follow WP:CIVIL when editing. Springee (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I already have provided a good reason, multiple times, and you have ignored it multiple times, and continued to falsely insist it does not relate to the NRA, hence the concern I just expressed. soibangla (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Topic banning Springee has been contemplated. Might be time to look at it again. Romoving his friend 72bikers has made this talkpage much better. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you haven't. The material you added isn't new. It was discussed when we reached a consensus about the content of this section. What you added is more detail about the connections she was trying to cultivate, not additional information about the NRA's involvement. So no, you aren't adding new information about the NRA. Your edits may a apply to other articles but they run counter to the previous consensus here. Springee (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Show me where a consensus was reached that the specific content I added should be excluded. Considering that you have repeatedly, falsely insisted that the edit has nothing to do with the NRA, I am not inclined to believe your assertion of previous consensus. soibangla (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed the NRA is central to this as evidenced by the sentence that starts "Most notably, Butina’s Russian gun rights group “Right to Bear Arms” hosted a delagation of former NRA presidents, board members and major donors in Moscow in 2015,.... We should be selective about how we summarize the material so as not to burden readers with extraneous detail. - MrX 🖋 23:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Springee your plainly false statements are getting out of hand here. Please stop or we will need to make you stop. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly discontinue your threats and hyperbole. See WP:CIVIL  -- Frotz(talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

In twi minds, whilst it does not it is ot about the NRA background about the activities (and more importantly the fiddlings that they were Russian agents) may be pertinent.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe when it was previously discussed the feeling was to include sufficient information here but primarily link to the primary article on the subject. Springee (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the fact of proven links is pertinent.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian donors
, given this is describing an event that happened almost a year ago, should we use future tense for the part about the letter going to the Federal Election Commission? Can we state "was" or "stated it would be". It just seems odd to speak of what is likely a past event in future tense. I'm not sure why Newsweek is a better source the NPR but I see no reason not to leave both in. I will restore that this letter was in response to a sentator's request. This is politics and that a democratic senator is requesting the information is worth including. After all, the NPR article makes it clear the NRA was replying to Sen. Ron Wyden. That also explains why his aid was stating the letter would be submitted to the FEC. Springee (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you did. You replaced the current source, with a much older source. I guess now I know to check the publication dates on the source you cite. Please do not remove the current source, for obvious reasons.- MrX 🖋 14:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , What? I hope you just missed something and don't actually think I'm trying to pull a fast one.  I'm not and assume you just missed something after a quick read.  The Newsweek and NPR articles have the same publication date, April 11, 2018.  Also, the NPR article makes it clear the NRA was responding to the senator, not just posting a letter out of the blue ("Wyden has been quering the NRA about...").  Springee (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was mistaken about the publication dates. Newsweek says that the letter was addressed to Congress. NPR doesn't contradict that as far as I can see.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I had to check my grammar. Changed "will be" to "would be".  I added Wyden back to the top of the paragraph since the NPR article starts with Wyden's inquiry.  This wasn't just an open letter submitted to Congress but a response to questions from a Senator.  Springee (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The letter was addressed to Congress and sent to Wyden, right?- MrX 🖋 14:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The letter was addressed to, "The Honorable Ron Wyden, Committee on Finance, United States Senate, [address]" followed by "Dear Senator Wyden".  NPR also said "The NRA said in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden..."  I would like to make sure we are both discussing the same thing.  I would like to restore my version of the text but I want your input before I make any additional changes.  Springee (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The NPR article opens with "The National Rifle Association has accepted contributions from about 23 Russians, or Americans living in Russia, since 2015, the gun rights group acknowledged to Congress." This is clearly part of ongoing correspondence between the NRA and the Finance Committee, and it may make sense to start the sentence with "In a response to a previous letter from X asking Y..." for context. Perhaps other sources will help clarify the situation: Is this a response to questions asked by Wyden personally, or was he acting as a spokesperson for the Committee? –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would assume the questions and responses would be in an official capacity (the Committee on Finance presumably). MrX's text edits said the letter was addressed to Congress (Newsweek said the same).  NPR isn't as difinative on the point and the text of the letter appears to be addressed to Wyden in his official capacity.  Does that count as "to congress"?  The NPR text sidesteps this by saying the letter acknowledged to Congress (presumably via a senator on the committee) vs saying the letter was addressed to Congress.  Perhaps it would be better if we said to the Committee on Finance via Wyden or your "In a response..." text.  The to congress part is less significant in my reading vs making it clear this was a reply to inquiries from the senator (presumably in an official capacity).  I agree another strong source would be helpful. Springee (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mueller investigation into Trump-NRA connections
The Mueller investigation is interested in the Trump campaign's ties to the NRA. This relates to the Russian involvement with the NRA and will likely require some level of coverage in this article. - MrX 🖋 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller wants to know about 2016 Trump campaign's ties to NRA
 * Mueller asked Trump campaign about ties to NRA: CNN


 * Thanks for posting this for discussion here. I just skimmed the articles but is there anything new here?  The CNN article just seemed to say what we already knew.  Mueller is investigating.  If there is new content and it is independently supported by a second source we should consider adding it.  Is the new part an independent confirmation that Mueller is asking about the Trump-NRA association?  If so I could see adding it to one of the sentences saying Mueller's investigation includes the NRA even with CNN as the only independent source.  Regardless, thanks for opening the dialog.  I think that will make this go much smoother. Springee (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is apparently new is the confirmation that Mueller is interested in the links between the campaign and the NRA, in addition to what we already know about indictments related to Russia using its NRA ties to infiltrate/influence the GOP.- MrX 🖋 23:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As simple confirmation that Mueller is investigating Trump-NRA I guess we would add it to the opening sentence of the Russia section? Most of the article recaps old news but a statement by someone who was interviewed that Mueller was looking into the Trump-NRA connection is additional evidence that the NRA is being pulled into the 2016 election investigations.  Currently the article says Mueller is looking at how the Russians may have used the NRA to influence the 2016 election.  The background of the article suggests this is more of the same but the statement from the person interviewed suggests this could also be Mueller questioning Trump-NRA even without a Russian component.  That would certainly add to the current scope. Would it make sense to change the section heading from "Russia" to "2016 Election and possible Russian involvement" or such?  I would note that this is still a bit problematic because I think the encyclopedic part of this is going to be what is proven in the end.  I would suggest that if, in the end nothing becomes of the NRA's part then this material should be trimmed back and linked to the primary articles of the subject.  But we aren't there yet.  Springee (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Too much, too soon. Put a simple sentence at the end. O3000 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Question is, is this related to Maria Butina? O3000 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, she asked Trump a question about U.S.-Russian relations at a campaign event. That's not to say it's the only way it's related.- MrX 🖋 23:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

NRA and racism
I just reverted an edit starting: Members of the leadership of the NRA have been made remark that are perceived by many as racially charged or racist as I thought the first source unusable and the remaining source not strong enough for the claim. However, perhaps it is time to revisit this as it comes up from time to time on the talk page. This article: 23 reasons why the NRA is racist is probably also unusable as a cite. But, perhaps it could be used to find usable sources for a general section on the topic. Thoughts? O3000 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I can remember there were two RFCs on the subject. Here and later here the first one failed and second had concensus for some inclusion. If you look though those there are probably some RS listed. I would oppose personally using the Media Matters blog post for content on that subject just from the type of source it is with a, from what I can tell, non-notable author and the list itself is not very good. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose using the Media Matters source on several counts, not the least of which is that it is extremely subjective, is extremely partisan, and doesn't care much about getting the facts straight. That blog post in particular is a prime example and makes numerous factual errors.  -- Frotz(talk) 01:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those two RfCs are on a slightly different topic, "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners". A slight variation of the text proposed in the more recent RfC, complete with references, currently appears in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct the second RFC concluded to include the info. PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I remember in the 1960s the NRA was attacked in The New Republic column TRB from Washington for granting a gun club charter to Robert F. Williams thereby supplying guns and ammunition to a "black nationalist" to establish a guard of military veterans protect his community from KKK night riders and also for supplying .22 ammunition to a civilian marksmanship club in Harlem, NYC. As a voting NRA member I recall voting for Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality every time he was on the ballot for NRA board of directors. Roy Innis was and his son Niger is active in the NRA. If anything the NRA is "guilty" of trying to moderate the traditional racist nature of gun control itself as laid out in the CORE Amicus in DC v Heller 2008. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your own experiences are not relevant, what RS say is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ackerman McQueen
There isn't one mention of Ackerman McQueen in this article. It's all over the news. Given they've worked together since the 1980s, I don't think WP:RECENTISM applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Currently we know there is a lawsuit but little else. What would we say about it that would be relevant in a decade or more?  I'm not saying this shouldn't be in the article in the long term but currently it's a bit of noise but we have no idea if it will be significant in the end.  I would say RECENTISM applies. Springee (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , well we can detail their longstanding relationship, and then cover the lawsuit. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it's already been included. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I saw your MelanieN's changes. No objection here. Springee (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

North-LaPierre power struggle
, as an experienced editor you should know that the lead is meant to be a summary of the body. To claim that an internal power stuggle of unknown impact or outcome should be in the lead of a 140 year old organization is very quetionable. You have plenty of time to add and get community consensus on what ever body content you feel should be added but currently you are violating WP:LEAD, which is part of the MOS guideline. We also need to keep RECENT in mind here. Springee (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Given your editing history, it should come as no surprise that I vehemently disagree with virtually everything you say. soibangla (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, we still have to follow policies and guidelines. Springee (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are well known for attempted intimidation, like the trash you just put on my Talk page. Keep it up. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't find the previous DS notice so that was a mistake on my part and I apologized. I posted it to your page because your comment above isn't civil.  To be honest I didn't recognize you from our previous interactions.  Regardless of our previous disagreements on content, I trust you agree that the lead is a summary of the body.  This general content was discussed recently and left out due to concerns of RECENT.  More news had come out but we still don't have anything that would be lead worthy and you started with edits to the lead, not the body.  I'm happy to work with you on this but let's follow good editing practices. Springee (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Let’s not edit war over whether the recent events at the convention belong in the lead or not. (I don’t have to warn longtime editors like you two about edit warring, do I? or about civil discussion with each other?) This material is in the body (apparently Soibangla and I edit-conflicted over adding it). Whether it is appropriate for the lead or not: I would say not, at least not yet. If this dissension goes on to cause major changes in the way the NRA works then of course it should. But IMO there is an excellent chance this will be taken out of public view and papered over, and will not prove to have a major impact in the 150-year lifespan of this organization. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Insurgents Seek to Oust Wayne LaPierre in N.R.A. Power Struggle was on the front page of yesterday's NYT; your addition to the "1934 to present" section is the largest paragraph, and the latest entry since 1997, so this is a significant development; excellent chance this...will not prove to have a major impact in the 150-year lifespan of this organization is highly debatable, a close reading of news over the past several months suggests they are in the midst of an existential crisis on multiple fronts. As another editor previously noted, it wasn't until your edit that Ackerman McQueen was even mentioned in the article, although their role with the NRA has been extensively reported in recent months, indicating growing turmoil inside the NRA. I maintain it warrants at least a mention in the lede, but that's all I have to say about this. soibangla (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is possible this will create a major shift in the NRA. However, consider that the 1977 "Cincinnati Revolution" described in the history section doesn't make it to the lead.  Now look at what the Cincinnati Revolution did.  That was the point when the NRA changed from an organization focused more on hunting, and shooting etc to a focus on gun rights.[][]  It's quite possible that without that change the NRA wouldn't be the controversial organization we discuss today.  Yet that change, despite being clearly a turning point for the organization, isn't in the lead.  This is why I suggest that adding the material to the lead is UNDUE.  While RECENT is a concern, I agree with those, including you, who feel there is enough weight for inclusion but not in the lead, at least not until it has a bigger impact that things like the Cincinnati Revolt.  Springee (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Give it a little time. If this week's developments profoundly change the organization, we can put them in the lead then. At this point we don't know how important, or unimportant, this part of the history is. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you made a strong argument for including the Cincinnati Revolt in the lead.– Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been thinking along those lines but I could see it. The first two intro paragraphs could be combined.  The second paragragh could be a high level history stating what the organization was started to do and was largely the focus through the 1970s.  Then it could summarize the shift towards gun rights.  That would actually tie nicely with the last paragraph that talks about the lobbying and related efforts.  MelanieN, I agree it might profoundly change the organization but until we know we shouldn't put the information in the lead.  In my opinion, it would need to be a bigger change than the 1977 change to make it to the lead.  Springee (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I also concur that the 1977 change is significant enough for the lede. starship.paint ~  KO   12:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, based on the feedback here I'm think we have consensus to add this to the lead. I would propose we start by expanding the 1977 revolt content in the body.  Consider the volume we have on the Russia investigations as compared to the 1977 revolt.  To that end I suggest we try to find some additional sources/information for the body and possibly turn the revolt into a dedicated (sub)subsection.  It looks like much of the content is there but could use more weight.  With that in place I think it will be easier to write a good paragraph for the lead.  BTW, so long as we are talking about the lead I do think the NRA's training, education etc programs should be mentioned.
 * While the public view of the NRA is largely focused on politics, in terms of numbers of participants etc much of it's actual efforts is still the non-controversial programs. In my head such in formation would be a short second paragraph in the intro.  The current first two would be combined.  With such a change the intro would be structured like this:  1st paragraph discussing the highest level facts (what it is, age, mission etc).  2nd paragraph (the bulk of the work the organization does).  This gets it out of the way to dive into the more controversial stuff.  This is similar to how the Ford Pinto article was structured.  In that article the "mundane" car stuff was covered first and the second half of the intro (and article) were all about the fires with no jumping back to no fire stuff at the end.  3rd paragraph is the literal and historical transition to politics.  Literal as the text of the article starts talking about it and historical as it talks about when the organization became more political.  Final paragraph is talking about the organizations lobbying/political aspects so basically what it already is.  Springee (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think 's changes are great. There's no indication it's due for the lead at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This has a place in the body, I am not sure it is significant enough to have a place in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor changes


Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * not seeing why the change needs to be made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable User:Tobby72. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Object to adding image. It's UNDUE in this article.  Springee (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Doc James, you should know better than to just revert without discussing first. Springee (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah actually User:Springee it was you who have been reverting without discussion. With you just joining the discussion now. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I supported the previous reversion. That made it 2:1 against thus the ONUS is on those who wish to include.  Rather than justify the restoration you restored without discussion.  Just saying "looks reasonable" isn't a justification when two other editors have said no.  At that point it's on those who wish to include to start the discussion (or add to it) and attempt to address concerns.  You are a seasoned editor, you shouldn't be missing things like this.  Springee (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No actually you did not join this discussion until now and instead simple reverted without writing anything here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email)
 * Did you write anything here before reverting two editors? Did you bother to ask what the objections were?  "Looks reasonable" is hardly a compelling argument for a change after objections. Springee (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The image contains no content mentioning, describing, naming, displaying, discussing, presenting, or criticizing directly the NRA. What is the rationale for adding it to this article, about the National Rifle Association, other than perhaps personal feelings about the organization? Anastrophe (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes agree a picture of a "March of Our Lives" with an NRA related signs would be more on topic. Found and added one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would still object as UNDUE. As has been said a number of times, this is a near century and a half old organization. We don't need to give that much space to a recent protest. Springee (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doc, please wait for others to review your proposed change before adding the image. It's clear we are (or should be) in the discuss part of this cycle and past BOLD.  Springee (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There is already a photo from a 'March on the NRA' protest, which is actually relevant. Generalized anti-NRA signs are a dime a dozen. WP:UNDUE within the scope of this article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The new photo seems appropriate to me. Although a single protest may be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it is representative of the "Public Opinion and Image" and "Criticism" sections which make up a significant part of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed that that one was added when I removed the other one. My UNDUE concerns apply there as well.  First, while I agree that there are general anti-NRA messages when gun control marches happen, there are also a lot of examples of people supporting the NRA.  We don't have those pictures included.  Also, that picture is not about the public opinion of the organization rather of a specific march.  If the section is about public opinion why discuss a particular gun control march?  So my view is either balance it with a pro-NRA image or remove it.  Springee (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a way to photograph the public's opinion of an organization, any image is going to come from a specific event that represents the overall concept. And if you know of a pro-NRA image that you think should be included, please do so or post it here for discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually think it would be better to avoid the issue entirely. Consider this, what if we don't have a "NRA supporting" image that we can use?  For example, images of people defending their 2nd A rights might be appropriate here [] but do we have any acceptable pictures in our archives?  So if we don't have one in the archive then we can't balance the negative image.  Better to simply not include it to avoid balance issues.  Springee (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found some pro-NRA images:, , , , , , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those photos are 'pro-NRA'. Anastrophe (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, those aren't "pro-NRA" rather gun rights pictures. One shows a person in an NRA hat but that's it.  Again, this presents a NPOV issue.  The pictures also aren't important to conveying the information in the section.  At this point I think we don't have a consensus to include the new pictures.  Springee (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about the image added (not any other, that is a different issue), and no I do not see what it added (but my objection was not really to the image, but the fact the edit also include textual changes that was not made clear in the edit summery.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not really a fan of either picture for the section in question. Looks more like something that would violate NPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , there is no consensus for either image []. The discussion regarding the image in the survey section was discussed above.  I argued that it was UNDUE because it presents a negative view without a counterbalancing positive view.  At the same time the image does not enhance the text/subject of the material in the section.  Tobby72 suggested some images that could be used to balance the presentation but as Anastrophe noted, none were "pro-NRA".  We simply don't have consensus for inclusion.  Springee (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing were this image is being discussed? Looks fairly appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was discussed just a few lines above. Several pictures were suggested to balance this one.  No consensus for a balancing picture was found.  "Looks fairly appropriate" is not MOS.  Please explain why you think it's NPOV and why it enhances the section where it was added.  That section starts by showing the NRA has significant support in the general public.  So given the text how is a single, highly negative image appropriate?  What policy/guideline supports inclusion?  Where is the consensus for inclusion?  This isn't a long time stable image so consensus for inclusion is needed. Springee (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference here is more recent polling data which puts the NRA at just over 50% favorable []. How do we justify using only a negative image in that section?  Are you willing to say that is per MOS? Springee (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you can't come up with a policy or guideline based reason for keeping the image then don't restore it. This is a new image and there isn't consensus for inclusion. ONUS is on you for inclusion. Springee (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the section on public opinion based on the following reasons. For these reasons I have removed the image. If this is seen as a problem I think the next step is a NPOVN discussion. Springee (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No consensus for inclusion. This was a newly added image thus onus is on those wishing to include.
 * The image does not align with the text. Per MOS:IRELEV the image should help illustrate the concept of the section, it should not be decorative.  The section is presenting poling information that is largely balanced between support and opposition to the NRA (leaning somewhat in favor of support).  The image is clearly negative only and is from an rally associated with the 2018 March for Life.  This isn't a good image to illustrate the poling data.
 * The image is UNDUE. If we take this image to illustrate public mood or perception of the NRA (which is somewhat OR if we do) then the image should be balanced or even with the message of the text.  The text is not 100% negative on the NRA so why include a 100% negative image in the section.  As mentioned above the UNDUE aspect could be balanced with a "pro-NRA" image but we still would have the MOS problem.
 * I disagree with your reasoning and am not seeing consensus for its removal. You could try a RfC. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So what is your counter argument? WP:Consensus says we need to try to address all legitimate concerns.  Failing to do so or an inability to provide a policy based argument for a change undermines consensus for the change.  Also, WP:CONSENSUS states In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.  If we don't have consensus for inclusion then we don't include.  Springee (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting my disagreement with your (Springee) argumentation. Add an image from both the sides of the debate, if you wish, at best. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 18:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, with that I accept that consensus opinion doesn't currently support removal of the picture. However, I would be interested to know why you feel that it doesn't violate NPOV to include a clearly one sided illustration that doesn't align with the text.  I'll add one of the images suggested by Tobby72. Springee (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Washington, NRA president?
, I saw that you reversed an IP edit adding Thomas Washington as NRA president between 1993 and 1995. A search for the name doesn't bring up much but he does appear to have been the NRA president until his death in 1995 []. I didn't see anything about it in my brief search of the archives. I'm normally very suspicious of IP edits here but it appears to have been correct (though without sourcing). What issue did you see? Springee (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A one edit addition with no source doesn't pass, IP or not. If you have a source, feel free.... O3000 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree with that thinking and your concerns. Springee (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE material added
The material added here [] regarding San Francisco's board of supervisors calling the NRA a terrorist organization is currently UNDUE. Per NOTNEWS, this isn't something that can be shown to have any long term impact on the NRA. In 10 years is this claim going to mean anything other than some politicians grand standing? Beyond that, it's not clear how this material integrates into the existing text or supports the section. Factoids shouldn't be added as stand alone things. Springee (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree since it's just one city and not really what a city does. If a bunch of major cities piles on; that would be different. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would concede that it might have a place in the "Criticism" section, but it'd need to be phrased within that context. DBalling (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to amend what I said and note that if this turns into something bigger, for example the civil rights case brought by the NRA against NY then it should absolutely be included. However at this time the weight seems like something that will be forgotten next year. Springee (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reported in the NYTs, position of a significant organization. Belongs somewhere in this article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just claiming it belongs "somewhere" is very weak. Where and why?  It was political posturing by a city board.  This is the same board of supervisors who voted to change pet owners into "pet guardians" [].  It's a meaningless political stunt and NOTNEWS applies here.  Springee (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to this a "political posturing" in edit summaries. This is your opinion about a city dealing with a serious problem. Having said that, I don't think it belongs at this time as it's one city using a charged term. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like the LA Times and The Post have both run pieces largely dismissing the whole thing as a stunt. A non-binding resolution from a body whose purview does not include the designation of terrorist organizations. Colorful language includes slander, harmful, pseudo-legislation, and gratuitous references to Joseph McCarthy.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

NRA as a conservative organization
Rather than adding an unverified assertion that the NRA is conservative, would those who believe this is true please present some objective and verifiable evidence of that? Something doesn't become "conservative" because people opposed to conservatives don't like it. If anything, the NRA's approach is more in line with classic liberalism or libertarianism. -- Frotz(talk) 06:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading AFF and AR each month, I think you'd need to make a stronger case yourself that they are classical-liberal or libertarian in approach, givem the wildly authoritarian bent they take on pretty much every topic other than gun control. And even then, the modern NRA has supported bump-stock and red-flag legislation which puts them on the authoritarian side of even that issue. -- DBalling (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we label the NRA classic liberal or libertarian. My point is that we cannot legitimately label them as any of these three.  If you have any specific proof of how it should be labeled, please present it here and stop re-adding this information.  You must be reading something other than the NRA's own publications when it comes to bump stocks and red-flag legislation, because it has made statements opposing both.  I did find one publication from the NRA supporting bump stock bans, so exactly what's going on there is unclear.  So...  Let's discuss it here.  -- Frotz(talk) 17:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that (tonally) your response makes it out like *I* am editing it call it a conservative org which I've never done. Vis-a-vis the NRA and red flag laws, there's this article for example. The practical upshot is that the NRA's position as an _actual defender_ of firearms rights is a matter of great debate within the firearms civil-liberties world. -- DBalling (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I read that article. The first paragraph seems to suggest that they're in support of red-flag laws, but further down there is no such language saying so conclusively.  Instead are a list of things that a red-flag law must entail before it even considers such support.  That's not at all equivalent to "support".  To say that the NRA is or is not a good defender of anything is a matter of opinion.  Other firearms rights groups have been formed by people who don't think that the NRA goes far enough.  -- Frotz(talk) 05:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree the NRA isn't really a conservative organization. It's a bedfellow of conservatives for political reasons, not because they are fundamentally aligned on other conservative goals.  The NRA's support of conservative politicians would go away in a heartbeat if those politicians were hostile to the gun related policies the NRA supports.  Based on that I think the tag doesn't belong but since I never use tags I'm not sure it's a big deal one way or the other.  Springee (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. Trump's been anti-gun his entire career - business or politics - and the NRA still can't stop fawning all over him. He just talks a good game now and convinces people he's pro-gun. But he never drove reciprocity when he had both houses of congress, and every time something happens like a shooting, he's right out there "oh let's do something to control this" (red-flag, bump-stocks, etc.) until the political forces around him reel him back in. -- DBalling (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (Note: Springee below is replying to DBalling above, but I'm not sure how to make this work cleanly) Going along with this, the NRA is known for forming friendly relationships with other groups with a decidedly liberal mindset AND happen to advocate for firearms rights.  A good example of this is Pink Pistols (well, self-described as libertarian, but homosexual issues are often have a liberal tone).  I don't have anything public to point to for relationships with The Liberal Gun Club or the Socialist Rifle Association, but through word of mouth I am reasonably sure the NRA wouldn't object to working with them.  -- Frotz(talk) 06:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I get your point. The NRA was working to get Trump in office because the alternative was clearly not good for them.  I'm also not sure Trump counts as a conservative.  That perhaps proves my point.  The NRA isn't interested in a conservative or liberal agenda so much as a gun rights agenda and they will support whom ever supports their agenda.  Springee (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that your statement "The NRA's support of conservative politicians would go away in a heartbeat if those politicians were hostile to the gun related policies the NRA supports" is demonstrably false, since Trump is hostile to their policies, but they continue to fawn all over him. Left to his own devices, he's everything they would rail against. -- DBalling (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So far Trump hasn't proven to be overly hostile to the NRA's policy objectives. Trump might not support them in his heart but for political reasons they both have allied to one another.  Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with the claim that the NRA is or isn't a "conservative" organization.  Springee (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm refuting *your assertion* that the NRA would repudiate a politician who worked counter to their policies regardless of that candidate's "leanings". Whether "true conservatives" believe Trump is "conservative" or not, that's how he portrays himself, and there's a ton of the conservative-right who view him as such, despite copious reasons they should probably not do so. The NRA is in bed with him NOT because of his gun policies (as evidenced by the fact that his personal leanings and his reflex at every turn is to go against their goals), but because he's aligned with the politically-conservative half of the government. So -- worse -- the NRA will openly espouse the fiction that Trump is conservative and pro-gun, because that's the side that they have decided they need to be aligned with. TL;DR: Your foundational assertions about the NRA's political-neutral/policy-focused need to be backed up by data. -- DBalling (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's please stay on point, and avoid discussion of what would happen in some situation, if X did Y. The discussion raised is "whether NRA is a conservative organization", and I don't see how Trump is relevant to that, irrespective of his actions, past, present, or future.

Back to the discussion at hand: Frotz raises an interesting point, which seems to me to be a subset of a larger issue. Let me see if I can restate it in more general way: can one label an organization using a broad-brush political descriptor such as "left", "right", "conservative", "liberal", if the organization advocates only on a single issue, even if their position on that one issue is highly correlated with that of a political group which holds views on many different issues? In this broader view, the same question would apply to other advocacy groups; for example: are groups opposed to abortion "conservative"? (I know some people in the Catholic left who would disagree; at least with respect to their own opinions.) Are groups fighting for more LGBT rights "liberal"? (I know of some LGBT individuals who would disagree.)

I think in all of these cases, we would have to rely on Wikipedia's core principles of verifiability and due weight. If the preponderance of reliable sources who speak to the topic identify an organization as conservative, then it's safe for us to do so in Wikipedia's voice. If there are reliable sources on both sides of that question, then we can use in-text attribution to identify who is saying what, or just summarize the differing opinions among reliable sources, paying close attention to WP:DUEWEIGHT. I think much of the debate so far has been too much about our own opinions on this topic as editors&mdash;which counts for zero as far as article content is concerned&mdash;and not enough on trying to analyze what the reliable sources say. That's where this conversation should be headed, in my opinion, or it should be collapsed as off-topic. Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding User:Doug Weller as a trusted, experienced editor, should he choose to comment. This is not an Rfc so WP:CANVAS does not apply, but in any case I have no idea what opinion, if any, Doug might hold about this topic, and am pinging him solely as a voice of reason. Mathglot (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree on this point of leaving Donald Trump out of this discussion. Much can be said about his feelings for or against gun control, but they are completely irrelevant here.  -- Frotz(talk) 06:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A non-American here. To most of the world almost all American politics would be classified as right wing and conservative. The NRA routinely supports the more conservative side of this overall conservative scenario. To me, any argument that the NRA is not conservative is just nonsensical. But as I said, I'm not American, so I'll probably be told my opinion doesn't count. But Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The example you, Mathglot, bring up of the Catholic left being against abortion and yet not being "conservative" is exactly the sort of thing we need to investigate here. A snap-judgement is often made of assuming that "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" (a sort of inverse of The enemy of my enemy is my friend) which you have succinctly shown to be bad logic.  -- Frotz(talk) 09:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do RS call it conservative, if not neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, I'm staying as an uninvolved Admin for this article. I can't comment and do that. Doug Weller  talk 10:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Np, Doug Weller, we definitely need that role here. Thanks for checking in and letting us know your eyes are on it. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Decades ago, the NRA wasn’t considered conservative. But, its leadership and spokespeople of late have been hard right and I think the press has been increasingly linking them to conservatism.
 * “This morning, President Trump is giving the keynote address at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action’s Leadership Forum in Indianapolis. This is Trump’s fifth consecutive appearance at the event, which regularly hosts a parade of prominent Republicans — especially as the organization has increasingly pushed conservative viewpoints that go far beyond gun rights.” WaPo
 * "The NRA used to be much more bipartisan. Now it's mostly just a wing of the GOP" “In 2016, 98.4% of all House candidates donated to by the NRA were Republican” CNN
 * “President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with leaders of conservative groups, including Wayne LaPierre (R), executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA).” CNBC O3000 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * None of these can be considered neutral assessments by any stretch given how partisan they've been over the past few years. -- Frotz(talk) 01:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with The Washington Post, CNBC, and CNN, take it to WP:RSN. These are all respected sources and to reject all of them is.... O3000 (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there examples of articles referring to organisations such as the California teachers union or the Wisconsin teachers union as liberal organisations? They are both very pro-democrat but I'm not sure they are pro many items on the topics liberal agenda vs they understand the GOP is generally not for their specific agenda items.  Same is likely true if there NAACP.  Also, again we should have the long view here.  The NRA is about a century and a half old.  The article above all looked at a relatively recent timeframe.  It is certainly a stretch to call the NRA conservative vs simply a single issue organization which is how it's typically portrayed.  Finally, while I do not support the tag, how much difference does having the tag make one way or the other? Springee (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the NRA long ago went way beyond being a single issue organisation.
 * Two, explicitly, use the words conservative. I think (with attributation) this is enough, but not for the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"Blocked Research on Gun Control"
Earlier today I removed the clause "blocked research on gun control" from the introductory paragraph and had it summarily reversed. I have several reasons I think this phrase does not belong in the introduction:
 * The linked Dickey Amendment does not explicitly block the CDC from doing research on gun violence, as is commonly repeated.
 * Regardless of the purpose/effects of said amendment, the law was passed by members of Congress (with lobbying support for the amendment by the NRA). This does not constitute direct action by the NRA in "blocking research"
 * Given the previous, the phrase is redundant as it is part of the actions previously described ("Over its history the organization has influenced legislation")

Perhaps a better replacement for the whole sentence would be "Over its history the organization has influenced legislation (Such as the Dickey Amendment and FOPA), participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates at local, state, and federal levels."

Sorry if my previous edit was presumptuous. --Dabluecaboose (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It does seem odd we say they blocked it when it was in fact a legislative body (which they are not).Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is a more complex issue/story than what is being presented. Many sources state that the NRA got the law passed.  I think that is true.  However, Dabluecaboose is correct in that the law doesn't actually restrict research into gun violence.  It instead restricts government sponsored activism related to the subject.  The message taken away by various federal agencies was likely to be careful about gun violence related research.  Basically I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.  It's probably best to not state "blocked research on gun control, " as that literally is not true on several levels.  Perhaps "successfully lobbied for a restriction on federal support for " is closer.  Still we are stuck with a gray area as the law literally doesn't restrict much but the agencies that grant funding read it as an implied threat.  In the end we should make sure what we write is literally true.  Springee (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Add " had been characterized as"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good suggestion. Would it be too long to say:
 * Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, successfully lobbied for what has been characterized as a block on federal funding of gun control research...
 * It makes that one section of the sentence rather long. Springee (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let this discussion sit for a day or so. If no objections or better suggestions let's make the change. Springee (talk)
 * Looks good to me. O3000 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I may, I still feel that my original suggestion "Over its history the organization has influenced legislation (Such as the Dickey Amendment and FOPA), participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates at local, state, and federal levels." is a better fit, since the Dickey amendment is just one of the many pieces of legislation influenced by the NRA. I think we're spending too much time in the introductory paragraph trying to say "NRA blocks gun control research" when that could probably be better explained in its own subsection further down. --Dabluecaboose (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that version of the text but I think you will get push back. Many people "know" the NRA blocked gun control research.  They don't know what the Dickey Amendment was.  So if we just say that the meaning is lost.  What about using Slatersteven's suggestion in yours?  Over its history the organization has influenced legislation (Such as the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the Dickey Amendment which has been characterized as a block on federal funding of gun control research)...  Springee (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a whole lot of fluff to shoehorn into the introduction. If someone wants to go into detail on the various lobbying efforts of the NRA-ILA there's plenty of room down later in the article.  I think we're spending too much time trying to characterize the Dickey amendment when we could just not mention any specific lobbying efforts in this sentence.  Alternatively, we could just add a second sentence "Some notable lobbying efforts by the NRA-ILA are the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which lessened restrictions of the 1964 Gun Control Act, and the Dickey Amendment, which blocks the CDC from using federal funds to advocate for gun control"  I do not think the introduction is the place to go into nuance as to what people "consider" the Dickey Amendment to be. --Dabluecaboose (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern (see my discussion in the section above). However, I think this is a case where you may find that involved editors are unlikely to let that part leave the intro.  Thus the question is how to keep it in the intro but in a factually accurate manor.  Springee (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, I propose the following:
 * "Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates at local, state, and federal levels. Some notable lobbying efforts by the NRA-ILA are the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which lessened restrictions of the 1964 Gun Control Act, and the Dickey Amendment, which blocks the CDC from using federal funds to advocate for gun control"
 * Still includes the explanation of the Dickey amendment, but at least separates it into another sentence. I think that listing other notable examples serves to maintain an encyclopedic tone and neutral POV instead of one specific (and widely misunderstood) example that sounds partisan.  --Dabluecaboose (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)