Talk:National Rifle Association

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shane mullen (article contribs).

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)

• 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. GMG^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[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 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—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)

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)

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• May 8: NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch tells David Corn of Mother Jones that there was no December 2015 NRA trip to Moscow.

2) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)

• July 16: NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch clarifies her May 8 denial of the December 2015 NRA trip to Moscow, telling Mark Follman of Mother Jones that she meant it wasn't an official trip.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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."
• 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.
• 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".

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.
• 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. 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.

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)

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 due doing 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 tell admonish 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 and an 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)

Y 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: 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." 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. A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.; 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)

Springee, you your sarcasm belies your misunderstanding of the topic, i.e. unhelpful. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, considered guilty? ... what are you talking about? Why are you not just following the RSs and wp process? X1\ (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, feel free to build this article since you wonder out loud why isn't it in the body of the article ... yet. X1\ (talk) 21:42, 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)

@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 on editorial judgment and common sense, we should also limit the see also entries to a reasonable number of links that would 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 a reasonable number of links. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:00, 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.
  • 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. A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.
• 2012
  • April 12–15: Torshin attends the NRA annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri with an "all access" pass.
  • November 8: Torshin visits the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.
• 2013
  • May 3–5: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA convention in Houston, Texas.
  • 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.
  • 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. Gottlieb and Keene are invited speakers at the event. 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."
  • December 10: John Bolton promotes gun rights in Russia in a video made for Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" organization.
• 2014
  • Butina tells an American Facebook friend who complained about California's gun restrictions that he should "hold demonstrations" for gun rights.
  • April 24: Butina presents NRA president Jim Porter with an honorary membership in "Right to Bear Arms".
  • April 25–27: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA annual conference in Indianapolis. Butina attends several meetings as a guest of Keene.
  • Late 2014: Butina resigns from her position as the head of "Right to Bear Arms".

cont. ... X1\ (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: Springee and PackMecEng, 320 days is long-stand, thus consensus. If time didn't matter in its meaning, there could never even be a moment in which consensus existed. For review of discussion, start at item number 1 above.

Since the items are long-stand, deleting them is the Bold in BRD, which has been Reverted, so now we continue Discussion, if you so desire.

If you want me to continue (as it was a Work-In-Progress) illustrating the avalanche of RSs (above) that show why the items were more than DUE (added back in Janauary 2019), I am willing to do so. X1\ (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus appears to be to exclude all the links. Please self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, a long-standing (320 days) consensus has established. I continue to support that consensus, and Springee does not. X1\ (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:SILENCE. Just because it has been there a while does not mean it is not a bold edit that has been challenged. By my count 3 different editors disagree with you and from my read Springee is correct that consensus to exclude from see also has been established. There is already a section in the article about the Russian interference angle and it is way undue to also add all those links in the see also section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As Springee incorrectly stated previously, the section in which your refer, PackMecEng, doesn't include all relevant links, as illustrated by this fragment of the relevant RSs alone, is DUE. As I stated earlier, I am willing to add to what is already an avalanche of RSs supporting the established consensus.

I must say it feels odd that you want to devote so much effort to delete a couple of relevant wikilinks. X1\ (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The section National Rifle Association#Russian influence is about general interference. If the read wants to read more on the minutia of the timeline they can go to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which is linked in that section. The timelines serve no purpose to be in the see also section. Yes there are a lot of sources on the topic, which is why this article has a section on it, they are not what determines what goes in the see also section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\, why are you devoting so much effort to keep them? That same question can go both ways. Also, it's a problematic form of editing to accuse me of a mistake I already admitted. At the same time, I'm correct in that if the article text points to the primary topic there is no reason to include all these also see links to the sub-topics. At this point please listen to others. Consensus can change and silence was always a weak consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus may have been considered "weak" before, but that was before the start of including backing RSs, which is strong. X1\ (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X1\, while the content does have an assumed consensus, having not been challenged. However, that isn't a strong consensus. Now we have three editors, myself, PackMecEng and Shinealittlelight who have objected. That is a new consensus. Springee (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not a new consensus, it is a challenge to the established consensus. X1\ (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start a RFC if you feel this new consensus needs more input. PackMecEng (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with these points. It's a new consensus. And the new consensus is policy based: as pointed out above, the edit is out of step with WP:MOS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Since WP:SILENCE was called, we should review this part: [[6]]. "Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change. " This is a case where consensus has changed. Springee (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

See here and here. By pointing to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, Springee, you are conceding there is a (long-standing) consensus. X1\ (talk)

Was a consensus. Yes, the material was in the article for a while and no one opposed it until now. However, three editors have opposed an only you, the editor who added it in the first place supports it. This is a new consensus. Please respect it. Springee (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is a challenge to the established consensus, and a while is, in fact, almost a year; plus now backed by an avalanche of RSs. X1\ (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Excessive Links to the Trump-Russia timeline articles in See Also section

The above discussion has become hard to follow due the volume of content vs discussion text above. I've added an UNDUE tag to the See Also section. The timeline articles are child articles of the parent topic Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. The child articles include Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as well as the related "Timeline of investigation..." articles. The primary topic is already linked in the Russian interference section of the NRA article. The inclusion of 4 links to the child articles in the see-also section is UNDUE and simply unneeded. @X1\ and Shinealittlelight: Springee (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This had no consensus for inclusion in the first place (it was simply never challenged) now it has consensus for removal 2:1. Removed. Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

See my response above, under main thread. X1\ (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\, first, there clearly is a new consensus against inclusion. You are the only editor who has ever supported inclusion. The material was simply not challenged at the time you added it. Admittedly, at the time you added it the Timeline topic hadn't been split into as many sub-articles. Your wall of text didn't convince others that the material was DUE. I think these timelines should probably be removed from all articles where they are added as "See also" links. After all, we have a primary topic on the Trump-Russia topic and we don't need to add "see also" links to every subpage of that topic. Springee (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I agree with you, Shinealittlelight and PackMecEng. In fact, after a quick review of the timelines (tl;dr), we probably should remove all the speculation relating to the 2016 Trump campaign now that the Mueller report has been published. I doubt there will be anything notable worth keeping much less encyclopedic (timelines of allegations and speculation are not encyclopedic) so an AfD may be in order. Articles like Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and a few others that attempt to imply collusion should be reviewed as well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Redo ping PackMecEng I messed up. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:52, 26 January 2020 (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)

User Springee is removed referenced content.

This is tantamount to vandalism.

I would welcome the user Springee to provide an explanation for removing referenced content, which has been concisely worded and maintains NPOV. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I will not take sides over the edit, I will take sides over calling a content dispute vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the issue? Removing referenced content is vandalism, and we are without an explanation. The mention of UNDUE is nonsensical. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No it is not. Do not use the word vandalism again when referring to a content dispute. O3000 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What is it then? Disruptive editing? We still have no explanation for the removal of the content. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edits do not have consensus, I ask you to revert until you do so. And yes an explanation was given it breached wp:undue, you need to make the case why it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was that it is not supported by the sources per MrX and Springee saying that it is undue for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The way it works, is if you're making a claim of UNDUE you need to provide an explanation of why it is undue. Consensus is not required for minor edits, and regardless, consensus is not necessarity the truth - WP has policy regarding this. Facts are facts. Disagreement based on POV is not a sufficient reason to raise an UNDUE claim. The source also supports the addition. Suggest you read it again. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

So there is a lot to unpack here. Per WP:ONUS it is on you to provide justification on why content should be included. That was not a minor edit, it added new and controversial content. Consensus should be obtained when an edit it challenged. See WP:TRUTH, for the consensus is not truth. Per WP:CIVILITY, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, do not accuse other editors of being POV pushers. Comment on content not contributors. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy that states that "consensus is not necessarity the truth". We are not obligated to include any and all material that can be sourced; we are selective. Please make a case as to why this material should be added to the article. Once your edit has been challenged, that's what you are supposed to do, not edit war or insist on your preferred version. — Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a simple matter of fact should be considered controversial. The UNDUE claim has not been established, yet an edit war was started by revisionists. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)