Talk:National Rifle Association: Difference between revisions
just 2011-2014 = WIP |
|||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
::::::::::{{re|X1\}} apologies, I meant to be referring to that whole sub-section of the MOS. Specifically, the current version appears to violate the MOS requirement that the links {{tq|should not repeat links that appear in the article's body}}. In my view, based on {{tq|editorial judgment and common sense}}, we should also limit the see also entries to a {{tq|reasonable number}} of links that {{tq|would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic}}, which I think the current version also does not do. {{re|Springee}} Five links is in my view not a {{tq|reasonable number}} of links. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
::::::::::{{re|X1\}} apologies, I meant to be referring to that whole sub-section of the MOS. Specifically, the current version appears to violate the MOS requirement that the links {{tq|should not repeat links that appear in the article's body}}. In my view, based on {{tq|editorial judgment and common sense}}, we should also limit the see also entries to a {{tq|reasonable number}} of links that {{tq|would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic}}, which I think the current version also does not do. {{re|Springee}} Five links is in my view not a {{tq|reasonable number}} of links. [[User:Shinealittlelight|Shinealittlelight]] ([[User talk:Shinealittlelight|talk]]) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} Examples from other segments: |
|||
4) [[Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections]] |
|||
*'''2011''' |
|||
** [[Maria Butina]] founds the "{{ill|Right to Bear Arms|ru|Право на оружие (движение)}}" organization.<ref name=TwoRussianGunLovers20180308 /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/maria-butina-wanted-influence-society-sister-says-n959661 |title=Maria Butina 'wanted to influence society,' sister says; The Russian operative spent years building connections in U.S. political circles and with influential conservative groups. |authors=Elena Holodny, Amy Perrette and Keir Simmons |date=January 17, 2019 |website=nbcnews.com |access-date=2 August 2019 |quote=In 2011, she founded a Russian pro-gun rights group called the Right to Bear Arms.}}</ref> |
|||
** '''April 29 – May 1''': Nashville lawyer G. Kline Preston IV introduces [[Federal Assembly (Russia)|Russian Senator]] [[Alexander Torshin]] to [[National Rifle Association]] (NRA) president [[David Keene]] at the NRA annual meeting in Pittsburgh.<ref name=GunsAndReligionWapo20170430>{{cite web|title=Guns and religion: How American conservatives grew closer to Putin's Russia |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-republican-right-found-allies-in-russia/2017/04/30/e2d83ff6-29d3-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html |website=[[The Washington Post]] |date=April 30, 2017 |access-date=May 28, 2018 |last1=Helderman |first1=Rosalind S. |last2=Hamburger |first2=Tom}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits 2011|url=http://outdoorchannel.com/nra-annual-meetings-and-exhibits-2011|website=Outdoor Channel|access-date=May 28, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180529025727/http://www.outdoorchannel.com/nra-annual-meetings-and-exhibits-2011|archive-date=May 29, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.<ref name=KeeneLetter20180220>{{cite web|title=In 2011 handwritten letter, NRA President offered help to Alexander Torshin for his "endeavors"|url=https://medium.com/@ScottMStedman/in-2011-handwritten-letter-nra-president-offered-help-to-alexander-torshin-for-his-endeavors-370f68101e3b|website=Medium|date=February 20, 2018|access-date=May 28, 2018 |last=Stedman|first=Scott}}</ref> |
|||
*'''2012''' |
|||
** '''April 12–15''': Torshin attends the NRA annual convention in [[St. Louis, Missouri]] with an "all access" pass.<ref name=NRAPresidentOferredToWorkMotherJJones20180720>{{cite web|title=NRA President Offered to Work With Accused Russian Spy's Group in Moscow |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/07/nra-russia-maria-butina-alexander-torshin-republicans-trump |website=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]] |date=July 20, 2018 |access-date=July 26, 2018 |last=Follman |first=Mark}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=NRA's Annual Meetings & Exhibits 2012: A Celebration of American Values|url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20120403/nras-annual-meetings-exhibits-2012|website=NRA-ILA|date=April 3, 2012|access-date=July 26, 2018}}</ref> |
|||
** '''November 8''': Torshin visits the NRA headquarters in [[Fairfax, Virginia]].<ref name=NRAPresidentOferredToWorkMotherJJones20180720 /> |
|||
*'''2013''' |
|||
** '''May 3–5''': Butina and Torshin attend the NRA convention in [[Houston, Texas]].<ref name="AccusedRussianAgentNRABuzzFeedNews20180716">{{cite web|title=Accused Russian Agent Used The NRA And The National Prayer Breakfast To Influence US Policy, Charges Say|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/verabergengruen/russian-gun-rights-nra-foreign-agent|website=[[BuzzFeed News]]|date=July 16, 2018|access-date=July 17, 2018|last=Bergengruen|first=Vera}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits 2013 | Events | Outdoor Channel|url=http://outdoorchannel.com/eventdetail.aspx?id=14221|website=[[Outdoor Channel]]|access-date=July 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180718001416/http://outdoorchannel.com/eventdetail.aspx?id=14221|archive-date=July 18, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> |
|||
** '''Early October''': Butina makes a presentation on "Right to Bear Arms" to the Association for the Promotion of Weapons Culture in Israel. Her presentation includes a slide claiming her organization has cooperation agreements with similar organizations in [[Kazakhstan]], Ukraine, and [[Estonia]], and she informs the group that it also has a cooperation agreement with the NRA. Another slide states it has a cooperation agreement with the [[International Defensive Pistol Association]], which the Texas-based organization denies when asked in 2018.<ref>{{cite web|title=Maria Butina Claimed to Have a "Signed Cooperation Agreement" With the National Rifle Association|url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/maria-butina-nra-signed-cooperation-agreement-2013-israel/|website=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]]|date=December 14, 2018|access-date=January 11, 2019|last1=Spies|first1=Mike|last2=Blau|first2=Uri|last3=Follman|first3=Mark|author-link2=Uri Blau}}</ref> |
|||
** '''Early November''': Keene, [[Alan Gottlieb]], Gottlieb's wife, and Paul Erickson attend the "Right to Bear Arms" conference in Moscow where they meet with Butina and Torshin.<ref name="GodfatherGoesToWashington20170405">{{cite web|title=The Godfather Goes to Washington (Updated) |url=https://trump-russia.com/tag/maria-butina |website=Trump/Russia |date=April 5, 2017 |access-date=July 18, 2018}}</ref><ref name=GunsAndReligionWapo20170430 /><ref name=MariaButinaConnectsRussiansDakotaFreePress20170327>{{cite web|title=Maria Butina Connects Russians, NRA, Trump, Sibby, and Mathew Wollmann |url=http://dakotafreepress.com/2017/03/27/maria-butina-connects-russians-nra-trump-sibby-and-mathew-wollmann |website=Dakota Free Press |date=March 27, 2017 |access-date=July 17, 2018 |last=Heidelberger |first=Cory Allen}}</ref> Gottlieb and Keene are invited speakers at the event.<ref name=RussianAccusedOfUsingSexCNN20180722>{{cite web|title=The Russian accused of using sex, lies and guns to infiltrate US politics|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/maria-butina-paul-erickson-russian-sex-lies-guns/index.html|website=[[CNN]]|date=July 22, 2018|access-date=July 26, 2018|last1=Scannell|first1=Kara|last2=Murray|first2=Sara|last3=Ilyushina|first3=Mary|first4=Jeremy|last4=Herb|first5=Liz|last5=Stark|first6=Paul|last6=Murphy|first7=Caroline|last7=Kelly|first8=Austen|last8=Bundy|first9=Katelyn|last9=Polantz}}</ref><ref name=NRAPresidentOferredToWorkMotherJJones20180720 /><ref>{{cite web|title=Выступление Дэвида Кина (США) на 2-ом съезде Право на оружие (на английском)|trans-title=Speech by David Keene (USA) at the 2nd congress The right to arms (in English)|language=en|type=video|via=YouTube|date=November 3, 2013|access-date=July 26, 2018|publisher=Oleg Seolander|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tj-ceQb9Ao}}</ref> Gottlieb and his wife dine with Torshin and Butina, and receive "gifts that [display] research into their interests." In 2017, Gottlieb tells the ''Washington Post'', "They wanted to keep communications open and form friendships."<ref name=GunsAndReligionWapo20170430 /> |
|||
** '''December 10''': [[John R. Bolton|John Bolton]] promotes gun rights in Russia in a video made for Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" organization.<ref>{{cite web|title=Выступление посла Джона Болтона в день празднования дня российской Конституции|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPM-FXHj5gA|type=video|date=December 10, 2013|access-date=July 17, 2018|publisher=Право на оружие|language=en|via=[[YouTube]]}}</ref><ref name="AccusedRussianAgentNRABuzzFeedNews20180716"/> |
|||
* '''2014''' |
|||
** Butina tells an American Facebook friend who complained about California's gun restrictions that he should "hold demonstrations" for gun rights.<ref>{{cite web|title=Maria Butina, Accused Of Being Russian Agent, Has Long History Of Urging Protest |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/09/19/647174528/maria-butina-accused-of-being-russian-agent-has-long-history-of-urging-protest |website=[[NPR]]|date=September 19, 2018|access-date=September 19, 2018|last1=Mak|first1=Tim|last2=Berry|first2=Libby |quote=I'm not familiar with your laws, but I think you need to hold demonstrations!}}</ref> |
|||
** '''April 24''': Butina presents NRA president [[James W. Porter II|Jim Porter]] with an honorary membership in "Right to Bear Arms".<ref name="GunsGodAndTrumpBuzzFeedNews20180718" >{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/verabergengruen/maria-butina-spent-years-wooing-us-conservatives-heres-how |title=Guns, God, And Trump: How An Accused Russian Agent Wooed US Conservatives |work=[[BuzzFeed News]] |last1=Bergengruen |first1=Vera |last2=Lytvynenko |first2=Jane |date=July 18, 2018 |access-date=August 7, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite tweet|title=Ответственная миссия выполнена - подарок от Право на оружие вручен мистеру Портеру - президенту NRA|trans-title=Responsible mission accomplished - a gift from the Right to arms was handed to Mr. Porter - the President of NRA|number=459439579326459904|author=Мария Бутина|author-link=Maria Butina|user=Maria_Butina|date=April 24, 2014|access-date=August 7, 2018}}</ref> |
|||
** '''April 25–27''': Butina and Torshin attend the NRA annual conference in Indianapolis. Butina attends several meetings as a guest of Keene.<ref name=GodfatherGoesToWashington20170405 /><ref>{{cite web|title=NRA's Annual Meetings & Exhibits 2014|url=https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140212/nras-annual-meetings-exhibits-2014|website=NRA-ILA|access-date=July 17, 2018}}</ref> |
|||
** '''Late 2014''': Butina resigns from her position as the head of "Right to Bear Arms".<ref>{{cite web|title=Misfire: Maria Butina's strange route from Russia to US jail|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/misfire-maria-butinas-strange-route-from-russia-to-us-jail/2018/09/10/53f68bc2-b4c3-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c96d79_story.html|website=[[The Washington Post]]|date=September 10, 2018|access-date=September 10, 2018|last1=Bodner|first1=Matthew|last2=Charlton|first2=Angela|agency=[[Associated Press]]|first3=Lisa Marie|last3=Pane}}</ref> |
|||
cont. ... |
|||
[[User:X1\|X1\]] ([[User talk:X1\|talk]]) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
Revision as of 21:30, 2 January 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rifle Association article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
![]() |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rifle Association article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 17, 2017. |
UNDUE material added
The material added here [[1]] 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" [[2]]. 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)
- 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" [[2]]. It's a meaningless political stunt and NOTNEWS applies here. Springee (talk) 13:58, 9 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)
- 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. GMGtalk 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[3] 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'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[3] 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'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 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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—which counts for zero as far as article content is concerned—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)
- @Mathglot: 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)
- @Mathglot: 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Russia connection, justification examples of Timelines' inclusion in See also
In contrast to these deletions [4][5], these Timelines are to be included in the "See also" section for reference, dated item examples given as justification:
1) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)
- January 18: McClatchy reports that the FBI is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Alexander Torshin, funneled money to the Trump campaign through the NRA.[1][2]
- March 15: McClatchy reports that Congressional investigators have learned that Cleta Mitchell, a longtime NRA lawyer, expressed concern over the organization's ties to Russia and its possible involvement in funneling Russian money to support Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Mitchell denies the reports.[3]
- March 16: Politico reports that the Federal Election Commission is investigating whether Russian entities funneled money to the Trump campaign through the NRA during the 2016 election. The inquiry was prompted by a complaint lodged by the American Democracy Legal Fund, a political watchdog organization.[4]
- March 28: NRA outside counsel Steven Hart tells ABC News the NRA received only one contribution from a Russian since 2012, the life membership payment from Alexander Torshin.[5]
- April 10: NRA general counsel John Frazer informs Senator Ron Wyden in a letter that the NRA accepted $2,512.85 from people with Russian addresses between 2015 and 2018. He says $525 came from contributions by two individuals, and the rest came from membership dues from 23 individuals. He notes that some of the individuals may be U.S. citizens. He acknowledges that Alexander Torshin is a life member of the NRA. Information in the letter contradicts earlier statements by the NRA.[6]
- May 7: The NRA announces board member Oliver North will replace Peter Brownell as president of the organization after Brownell announces he will not seek a second term. The selection of North is unusual because the NRA board normally selects someone who has served two terms each as the first and the second vice president, and North has held neither position. In August, David Corn of Mother Jones points out that the move comes two weeks after the FBI raided Butina's apartment and that Brownell is an associate of Butina.[7]
- May 8: NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch tells David Corn of Mother Jones that there was no December 2015 NRA trip to Moscow.[8][9]
2) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)
- July 16: NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch clarifies her May 8 denial[9] of the December 2015 NRA trip to Moscow, telling Mark Follman of Mother Jones that she meant it wasn't an official trip.[8][10]
- July 23: Senators Ron Wyden, Robert Menendez, and Sheldon Whitehouse send Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin a letter demanding the "production of any documents relevant to financial links between the NRA, its associated entities and Ms. Butina and any entities or individuals related to her." The letter is a follow-up to a similar letter Wyden sent Mnuchin in February.[11]
- November 2: The Daily Beast reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the NRA for documents related to its connections to Russia, including the December 2015 Moscow trip.[12]
- December 6: Mother Jones reports that the Trump campaign and the NRA both used National Media Research, Planning and Placement (NMRPP) to buy political ads in 2016, often with the same NMRPP employee buying ads for both Trump and the NRA for the same dates, television stations, and television shows. Former Federal Election Commission chair Ann Ravel tells Mother Jones, "I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where illegal coordination seems more obvious. It is so blatant that it doesn’t even seem sloppy. Everyone involved probably just thinks there aren’t going to be any consequences."[13]
- December 7: The Campaign Legal Center and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence file a joint complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the NRA and the Trump campaign illegally coordinated ad buys in 2016.[14]
- December 13: Butina pleads guilty in a D.C. federal court to trying to infiltrate the U.S. conservative movement as an agent for the Kremlin. She admits to working with Erickson to forge bonds with NRA officials and conservative leaders while under the direction of Torshin. In her plea agreement, prosecutors agreed to drop a charge of failing to register as a foreign agent in exchange for cooperation. In the statement of the offense, Erickson is identified as "U.S. Person 1", Torshin as the "Russian Official", the Republican Party as "Political Party #1", and the NRA as the "Gun Rights Organization".[15]
3) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)
- January 11: Mother Jones reports that the NRA appears to have coordinated ad buys with Republican candidates in at least three U.S. Senate races. Like the scheme reportedly used by the NRA and the Trump campaign, National Media Research, Planning and Placement (NMRPP) CFO Jon Ferrell placed scores of ad buys on behalf of the three senate campaigns and the NRA to air ads within minutes of each other on the same local television stations. The three senate campaigns were Senator Richard Burr's 2016 reelection campaign in North Carolina, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley's successful 2018 campaign to unseat Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, and the unsuccessful 2018 campaign by Montana state auditor Matt Rosendale to unseat Montana Senator Jon Tester.[16]
- September 27: The Democratic minority of the Senate Finance Committee releases a report which finds that the NRA acted as a "foreign asset" to Russia ahead of 2016 election.[17][18][19] The report presents detailed evidence of NRA officials' interactions with Russian nationals that bring into question the tax-exempt status of the NRA, including many details of the December 2015 Moscow trip that internal documents show was an official NRA function despite subsequent public denials.[20][19]
X1\ (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- No reason to spam this (and many other) article with a bunch of Trump links. It looks like a kind of POV pushing. The article has a section on Russian efforts to use the NRA. Any links can be made (and already are) in that section. Springee (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: feel free to include these Timelines in context there. X1\ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- No reason to. We have the relevant information in the article already. The lead in to the section on Russia includes a link to the timeline of interference in the 2016 election. That is the parent topic for the three lists you added to See Also. Per MOS we should think about it as what might someone what to read after reading this article. Well if you read the Russia stuff the parent article is right there so there is no reason to make 60% of the "see also" links subsets of the parent article. This is especially true when the Russia investigation is only a small part of the NRA article and is only related to the last 3 years. The DUE material is already in the article. The timeline articles are effectively list articles so it's not clear they are really good link candidate anyway. As an alternative proposal, what about replacing the current in article link, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections with a link to the parent topic Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections? If someone is interested in the bigger topic that is the place to go, not the timeline. That also puts the link in a germane location vs at the end of the article. Springee (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Updated Springee (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Springee: feel free to include these Timelines in context there. X1\ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Looking back I realized I must have missed the Jan addition of the material and only noted the Dec modification as a new addition. I've restored the Dec 3 version of the "see also" but I think it should be removed as UNDUE. The problem is 3 fold. 1. The 2016 timeline link is already in the Russia section and per MOS we shouldn't have the same links in the article body and in the see also. Per MOS the see also section should not contain a link that is already in the article. 2. As I said above, a single link in the relevant section to the parent topic makes more sense. Readers who are most interested in reading more about the Russian interference are likely better served by a top level link there vs timeline links later. Linking to what amounts to a list article that isn't really about the NRA. Again, this is why a link, in the Russian section, to the parent article makes more sense. The relationship between the content of the timeline lists and this article are not obvious absent searching for the keyword NRA in the lists. 3. Placing that much emphasis on Trump-Russia material, which largely doesn't involve the NRA and to the extent it does it's largely Russian agents deceiving the NRA, becomes a question of due. The Trump investigation is a tangential topic to the NRA and as of 3 years ago they had no linkage. Even a single See Also link is questionable. To have 3-4, well over half the see also link becomes a bit of a NPOV issue. Anyway, the easy way to solve this is by changing the Russian section link to the parent article to point to the primary Trump-Russia article. Springee (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @X1\:, I object to your recent edits. While the material I restored was added in January, you just restored recent edits which I objected to as soon as they were added. Those edits compound two problems I outlined above. 1. An undue emphasis on the Trump-Russia topic via too many links. That topic is tangential to the topic of this article. 2. The links to list articles should only link to the parent article, not the sublists. Also, there is still the issue that one of the links already exists in the Russia section. Basically this is a mess that needs to be cleaned up. However, I've offered a good option to address the problem above. Springee (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- @X1\:, the changes you have restored are not long standing and I'm objecting to your Dec 3 changes. Thus you either can claim the Jan version which has MOS issues or you can work on a compromise solution which is what I've done. Your UNDUE inclusion of 4 subarticles isn't a good option. That you haven't made any reasonable effort to address the problems here is also an issue. Springee (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- 1) Items are long-standing, see 01:16, 17 January 2019.
- 2) "Further" was added later (20:28, 9 November 2019)
- 3) Onel5969 helpfully created a dab (Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018)) 12:56, 24 November 2019, after "2018" was split. Obviously the dab is not the correct wikilinks.
- 4) I check which of the two halves this topic related, and it was both halves. So I changed the dab to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018) and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018) (see example items related above)
- 5) Then (1:30, 3 December 2019) you, Springee, deleted all four of the Timeslines from "See also" with an ES of "All relevant links are already in the article." (Which they are not.)
- 6) When I noticed (00:47, 27 December 2019 ), I restored, assuming good faith, with an ES of "restore wlinks (from diff=929002852&oldid=928998986), not found in article (and update): ..."; the update being the article title Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) had been changed to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020). Same article is linked.
- 7) You undid those corrections 04:35, 27 December 2019, with an ES of "This does not need to be in this article."
- 8 & 9) I undid your revert (21:52, 27 December 2019) with an ES of "(See Talk:National Rifle Association#Russia connection, justification examples of Timelines' inclusion in See also", after creating (21:51, 27 December 2019) a B.R.Discussion here.
- 10) You undid my corrections again (22:31, 27 December 2019 ) with an ES of "Get consensus before restoring. No reason to place this on every page with even a limited connection." (Even though the Consensus, due to the long-standing, was Keep, and the Bold was deletion.)
- 11a) 22:35, 27 December 2019 you respond on this Talk page.
- 11b) While (also 22:35, 27 December 2019) I restore the "See also" Timelines, with an ES of "Follow BRD and goto Talk; these are longstanding, see diff=878804707&oldid=878710203 01:16, 17 January 2019".
- 12) I respond here (22:37, 27 December 2019) that all relevant Timelines are not in this article.
- 13) 22:38, 27 December 2019 you delete the restoration again, with an ES of "This is a disputed addition. Per NOCON it stays out until consensus is established." (again long-standing, so is Consensus; not the other way around)
- 14) and you respond (22:41, 27 December 2019) on my Talk page admonishing me for not
duedoing BRD (how ironic) - 15) I attempt to direct the discussion back to the article (NRA) and the topic at hand (22:43, 27 December 2019) by moving your comment from my Talk page to here; as wp is not about personalities but content.
- 16) You respond by overwriting my move of your comment on my Talk page to here, with another response by you (22:44, 27 December 2019), saying they are here "already". (They are not.)
- 17) You
telladmonish me on my Talk page to not move your comments (22:48, 27 December 2019), on my Talk page.
- 18) And continue (02:28, 28 December 2019) here.
- 19) 03:20, 28 December 2019 you self-revert (kind of), with an ES of "I missed that the Dec 3 edit was a modification vs new. Restoring Dec 3 version until issue can be resolved. This is not support of this content". Your "self-revert" is to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018) (disambiguation) (it is SPLIT now) and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) (wrong title).
- 20 & 21) 21:45, 28 December 2019 I remove your admonishment from my Talk page, with an ES of "added explanation at article Talk page." and restore it with "added explanation" here.
- 22) 21:41, 28 December 2019 I attempt to correct your "kind-of self-revert", with
andan ES of "restore correct wLinks (due to previous split) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018) & Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018) (instead of Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018)); and since renamed Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020) (instead of Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)" again in AGF attempt to clarify.
- 23) 00:34, 29 December 2019 you deleted my move with "added explanation".
- 24) 00:39, 29 December 2019 additional Springee comment.
- 25) 17:35, 29 December 2019 you delete all the Timelines from "See also" and change the "further" to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
- 26) 19:48, 29 December 2019 I revert that with an ES of "No consensus to change long-standing items, continue at BRD."
- 27) 20:06, 29 December 2019 additional Springee comment.
- Hopefully I have all the back-and-forth captured and ordered correctly.
X1\ (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Updated, again. X1\ (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)And again. X1\ (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- X1\, that timeline of this discussion doesn't address the MOS issues I've raised. Springee (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Springee although the topic you raise is not the topic of this thread specifically, I also would find it helpful to have the *addition* of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (in this case at the "further"). In no way does this replace the long-standing Timelines.
- You incorrectly say this has been going-on for
3 years
, which shows you have not only not read the Timelines, you have not read Maria Butina § 2011's timeline either. - These misunderstandings are why the Timelines are needed here. X1\ (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I changed the "further" per our apparent consensus on that side topic. X1\ (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- As a side, but related note: Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day), Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017), and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017) have NRA/Butina items also. X1\ (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- X1\, you still fail to address simple MOS issues with your edits here. For example, the link to the 2016 timeline exists twice. That is something that MOS explicitly says we should not do with a "see also" link. The lists here are problematic to read around and hence were collapsed. Your timelines cover 3 years so please don't take my comments and apply a disingenuous meaning. I think we are going to need some outside help since you aren't willing to follow MOS and are willing to engage in an edit war to support both UNDUE linking and violations of the MOS. Springee (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @X1\: The stack of links to Russia-related lists in the "see also" section is at odds with MOS, see MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Shinealittlelight: your MOS:NotSeeAlso refers to not having disambiguation pages, which is what I correctly replaced from Springee's "kind-of self-revert". Besides that, not only isn't there a "stack", only half of the Timeline(s) are listed. X1\ (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: What are you talking about? Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections only exists once in the article.
- You are correct, I mistook the 2016 timeline article (parent article) for the 2016 timeline investigation (child) article. Can you offer some reason why we should include "also see" links to sub-articles rather than a single link to the parent article? I do see that you are a primary contributor to the investigation timeline articles but those are largely just lists vs narrative articles. Why have direct links? I rather doubt we use a "see also" for every article where the NRA is mentioned. Again, in context of the overall subject this is a DUE weight issue. Springee (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: they are timeline segments, not parent/child or article and sub-articles. X1\ (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- X1\, please don't spam ping me. A single ping is sufficient. The Russia investigation is certainly a topic you have put a great deal of effort into. That doesn't mean every remotely related topic needs to have a link to every subarticle you find important. The investigation timelines are basically list articles and they are simply supporting articles of the primary topic which is the Russian interference in the 2016 election. They ARE parent-child topics. If the interference didn't happen the investigations wouldn't happen and we wouldn't have investigation timelines. The timeline articles are lower order lists vs the primary topic. Springee (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: you have shown repeatedly that you do not understand the connection between the NRA and Russia which is spelled-out in the Timeline (segments). Your responses in this thread show why direct wLinks are necessary. X1\ (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is a non-sequitur. The timeline articles are lists. They say when various journalists or political groups (typically those who are opposed by the NRA) mention that the NRA was used by a Russian agent. But if the material you feel is so important is DUE then it would be in this article's body, not in a list article. Springee (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: they are timeline segments, not parent/child or article and sub-articles. X1\ (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct, I mistook the 2016 timeline article (parent article) for the 2016 timeline investigation (child) article. Can you offer some reason why we should include "also see" links to sub-articles rather than a single link to the parent article? I do see that you are a primary contributor to the investigation timeline articles but those are largely just lists vs narrative articles. Why have direct links? I rather doubt we use a "see also" for every article where the NRA is mentioned. Again, in context of the overall subject this is a DUE weight issue. Springee (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: again, what are you talking about?
Your timelines cover 3 years
? "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" starts in 1986, over 33 years ago. Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections § 2011 has "Maria Butina founds the "Right to Bear Arms " organization.[21][22]" and (April 29 – May 1) Nashville lawyer G. Kline Preston IV introduces Russian Senator Alexander Torshin to National Rifle Association (NRA) president David Keene at the NRA annual meeting in Pittsburgh.[23][24] A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.[25]; over eight and a half years ago. X1\ (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)- I guess I didn't realize Trump was running for the 2016 election 33 years ago. Again, that is a non-issue. What you seem to be saying is that the NRA should be considered guilty of something because the Russians decided to try to use them unwittingly. Again, if this material is DUE why isn't it in the body of the article vs in a see-also tag at the end. Springee (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @X1\: The stack of links to Russia-related lists in the "see also" section is at odds with MOS, see MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- X1\, you still fail to address simple MOS issues with your edits here. For example, the link to the 2016 timeline exists twice. That is something that MOS explicitly says we should not do with a "see also" link. The lists here are problematic to read around and hence were collapsed. Your timelines cover 3 years so please don't take my comments and apply a disingenuous meaning. I think we are going to need some outside help since you aren't willing to follow MOS and are willing to engage in an edit war to support both UNDUE linking and violations of the MOS. Springee (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @X1\:, linking to each of the disambiguated pages vs just a parent article isn't really a proper solution. Can you justify why we should have each page vs just a link to the parent article on the subject? @Shinealittlelight:, what is your thought on having the 5 links to basically related pages vs just a single link to the overall topic? Springee (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Springee: you have shown repeatedly that you do not understand the connection between the NRA and Russia which is spelled-out in the Timeline (segments). Your responses in this thread show why direct wLinks are necessary. X1\ (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @X1\: apologies, I meant to be referring to that whole sub-section of the MOS. Specifically, the current version appears to violate the MOS requirement that the links
should not repeat links that appear in the article's body
. In my view, based oneditorial judgment and common sense
, we should also limit the see also entries to areasonable number
of links thatwould be present in a comprehensive article on the topic
, which I think the current version also does not do. @Springee: Five links is in my view not areasonable number
of links. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @X1\:, linking to each of the disambiguated pages vs just a parent article isn't really a proper solution. Can you justify why we should have each page vs just a link to the parent article on the subject? @Shinealittlelight:, what is your thought on having the 5 links to basically related pages vs just a single link to the overall topic? Springee (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples from other segments:
4) Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
- 2011
- Maria Butina founds the "Right to Bear Arms " organization.[21][26]
- April 29 – May 1: Nashville lawyer G. Kline Preston IV introduces Russian Senator Alexander Torshin to National Rifle Association (NRA) president David Keene at the NRA annual meeting in Pittsburgh.[23][27] A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.[25]
- 2012
- April 12–15: Torshin attends the NRA annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri with an "all access" pass.[28][29]
- November 8: Torshin visits the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.[28]
- 2013
- May 3–5: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA convention in Houston, Texas.[30][31]
- Early October: Butina makes a presentation on "Right to Bear Arms" to the Association for the Promotion of Weapons Culture in Israel. Her presentation includes a slide claiming her organization has cooperation agreements with similar organizations in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Estonia, and she informs the group that it also has a cooperation agreement with the NRA. Another slide states it has a cooperation agreement with the International Defensive Pistol Association, which the Texas-based organization denies when asked in 2018.[32]
- Early November: Keene, Alan Gottlieb, Gottlieb's wife, and Paul Erickson attend the "Right to Bear Arms" conference in Moscow where they meet with Butina and Torshin.[33][23][34] Gottlieb and Keene are invited speakers at the event.[35][28][36] Gottlieb and his wife dine with Torshin and Butina, and receive "gifts that [display] research into their interests." In 2017, Gottlieb tells the Washington Post, "They wanted to keep communications open and form friendships."[23]
- December 10: John Bolton promotes gun rights in Russia in a video made for Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" organization.[37][30]
- 2014
- Butina tells an American Facebook friend who complained about California's gun restrictions that he should "hold demonstrations" for gun rights.[38]
- April 24: Butina presents NRA president Jim Porter with an honorary membership in "Right to Bear Arms".[39][40]
- April 25–27: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA annual conference in Indianapolis. Butina attends several meetings as a guest of Keene.[33][41]
- Late 2014: Butina resigns from her position as the head of "Right to Bear Arms".[42]
cont. ... X1\ (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Stone, Peter; Gordon, Greg (January 18, 2018). "FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump". McClatchy DC. Retrieved March 21, 2018.
- ^ Waldman, Paul (January 18, 2018). "The Russia scandal just got bigger. And Republicans are trying to prevent an accounting". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
- ^ Stone, Peter; Gordon, Greg (March 15, 2018). "NRA lawyer said to have had concerns about group's ties to Russia". McClatchyDC. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^ Meyer, Josh (March 16, 2018). "FEC probes whether NRA got illegal Russian donations". Politico. Retrieved March 17, 2018.
- ^ Turner, Trish; Mosk, Matthew (March 28, 2018). "NRA says it received one contribution of less than $1000 from a Russian". ABC News. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
- ^ Mak, Tim (April 11, 2018). "NRA, In New Document, Acknowledges More Than 20 Russian-Linked Contributors". NPR. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
- ^ Corn, David (August 3, 2018). "Did Alleged Russian Spy Maria Butina Cause a Leadership Shake-up at the NRA?". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
- ^ a b Follman, Mark (July 19, 2018). "The NRA Has Deep Ties to Accused Russian Spy Maria Butina". Mother Jones. Retrieved July 26, 2018.
- ^ a b Dana Loesch [@DLoesch] (May 8, 2018). "Any armed combatant is a threat. David Clarke isn't a "NRA official" and there was no NRA trip. thanks for allowing me to publicly correct you, David" (Tweet). Retrieved July 26, 2018 – via Twitter.
- ^ Dana Loesch [@DLoesch] (July 16, 2018). "Clearly you struggle with reading comprehension as I said it wasn't an official trip. Be sure to spin hard though, I enjoy watching your efforts" (Tweet). Retrieved July 26, 2018 – via Twitter.
- ^ Rubin, Jennifer (July 24, 2018). "Who met with Maria Butina?". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 26, 2018.
- ^ Woodruff, Betsy; Ackerman, Spencer (November 2, 2018). "Senate Intelligence Wants Documents on NRA's Russia Trip". The Daily Beast. Retrieved December 27, 2018.
- ^ Spies, Mark (December 6, 2018). "Documents Point to Illegal Campaign Coordination Between Trump and the NRA". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 13, 2018.
- ^ Hooks, Christopher; Spies, Mike (January 11, 2019). "Documents Show NRA and Republican Candidates Coordinated Ads in Key Senate Races". Mother Jones. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
- ^ Hsu, Spencer S.; Jackman, Tom; Helderman, Rosalind S.; Hamburger, Tom (December 13, 2018). "Russian Maria Butina pleads guilty in case to forge Kremlin bond with U.S. conservatives". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 13, 2018.
- ^ Hooks, Christopher; Spies, Mike (January 11, 2019). "Documents Show NRA and Republican Candidates Coordinated Ads in Key Senate Races". Mother Jones. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
- ^ Tim Mak (September 27, 2019). "NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals". npr.org. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
- ^ Spencer Ackerman (September 27, 2019). "Russians Used Greed to 'Capture' NRA, Senator Alleges in New Report; When the NRA visited Moscow in 2015, it wasn't just to strengthen ties to Putin allies. A new Senate report says it was about making money, too". thedailybeast.com. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
- ^ a b "Wyden Unveils Report on NRA Ties to Russia, Findings Show NRA Misled Public About 2015 Moscow Trip". United States Senate Committee on Finance (Press release). September 27, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
- ^ Hamburger, Tom (September 27, 2019). "NRA may have violated tax laws with 2015 trip to Russia, according to report by Senate Democrats". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
TwoRussianGunLovers20180308
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Maria Butina 'wanted to influence society,' sister says; The Russian operative spent years building connections in U.S. political circles and with influential conservative groups". nbcnews.com. January 17, 2019. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
In 2011, she founded a Russian pro-gun rights group called the Right to Bear Arms.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ a b c d Helderman, Rosalind S.; Hamburger, Tom (April 30, 2017). "Guns and religion: How American conservatives grew closer to Putin's Russia". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 28, 2018.
- ^ "NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits 2011". Outdoor Channel. Archived from the original on May 29, 2018. Retrieved May 28, 2018.
- ^ a b Stedman, Scott (February 20, 2018). "In 2011 handwritten letter, NRA President offered help to Alexander Torshin for his "endeavors"". Medium. Retrieved May 28, 2018.
- ^ "Maria Butina 'wanted to influence society,' sister says; The Russian operative spent years building connections in U.S. political circles and with influential conservative groups". nbcnews.com. January 17, 2019. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
In 2011, she founded a Russian pro-gun rights group called the Right to Bear Arms.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - ^ "NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits 2011". Outdoor Channel. Archived from the original on May 29, 2018. Retrieved May 28, 2018.
- ^ a b c Follman, Mark (July 20, 2018). "NRA President Offered to Work With Accused Russian Spy's Group in Moscow". Mother Jones. Retrieved July 26, 2018.
- ^ "NRA's Annual Meetings & Exhibits 2012: A Celebration of American Values". NRA-ILA. April 3, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2018.
- ^ a b Bergengruen, Vera (July 16, 2018). "Accused Russian Agent Used The NRA And The National Prayer Breakfast To Influence US Policy, Charges Say". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
- ^ "NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits 2013 | Events | Outdoor Channel". Outdoor Channel. Archived from the original on July 18, 2018. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
- ^ Spies, Mike; Blau, Uri; Follman, Mark (December 14, 2018). "Maria Butina Claimed to Have a "Signed Cooperation Agreement" With the National Rifle Association". Mother Jones. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
- ^ a b "The Godfather Goes to Washington (Updated)". Trump/Russia. April 5, 2017. Retrieved July 18, 2018.
- ^ Heidelberger, Cory Allen (March 27, 2017). "Maria Butina Connects Russians, NRA, Trump, Sibby, and Mathew Wollmann". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
- ^ Scannell, Kara; Murray, Sara; Ilyushina, Mary; Herb, Jeremy; Stark, Liz; Murphy, Paul; Kelly, Caroline; Bundy, Austen; Polantz, Katelyn (July 22, 2018). "The Russian accused of using sex, lies and guns to infiltrate US politics". CNN. Retrieved July 26, 2018.
- ^ "Выступление Дэвида Кина (США) на 2-ом съезде Право на оружие (на английском)" [Speech by David Keene (USA) at the 2nd congress The right to arms (in English)] (video). Oleg Seolander. November 3, 2013. Retrieved July 26, 2018 – via YouTube.
- ^ "Выступление посла Джона Болтона в день празднования дня российской Конституции" (video). Право на оружие. December 10, 2013. Retrieved July 17, 2018 – via YouTube.
- ^ Mak, Tim; Berry, Libby (September 19, 2018). "Maria Butina, Accused Of Being Russian Agent, Has Long History Of Urging Protest". NPR. Retrieved September 19, 2018.
I'm not familiar with your laws, but I think you need to hold demonstrations!
- ^ Bergengruen, Vera; Lytvynenko, Jane (July 18, 2018). "Guns, God, And Trump: How An Accused Russian Agent Wooed US Conservatives". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved August 7, 2018.
- ^ Мария Бутина [@Maria_Butina] (April 24, 2014). "Ответственная миссия выполнена - подарок от Право на оружие вручен мистеру Портеру - президенту NRA" [Responsible mission accomplished - a gift from the Right to arms was handed to Mr. Porter - the President of NRA] (Tweet). Retrieved August 7, 2018 – via Twitter.
- ^ "NRA's Annual Meetings & Exhibits 2014". NRA-ILA. Retrieved July 17, 2018.
- ^ Bodner, Matthew; Charlton, Angela; Pane, Lisa Marie (September 10, 2018). "Misfire: Maria Butina's strange route from Russia to US jail". The Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved September 10, 2018.
"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)
- 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)
- 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 "
- 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?
- If I may, I still feel that my original suggestion "
- Looks good to me. O3000 (talk) 17:53, 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)
- Works for me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's a good suggestion. Would it be too long to say:
- Add " had been characterized as"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class Firearms articles
- High-importance Firearms articles
- WikiProject Firearms articles
- B-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Mid-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class gun politics articles
- Unknown-importance gun politics articles
- Gun politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Selected anniversaries (November 2017)