Talk:National Rifle Association

Minor changes

March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C. on March 24, 2018

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[1] Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

not seeing why the change needs to be made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks reasonable User:Tobby72. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Object to adding image. It's UNDUE in this article. Springee (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James, you should know better than to just revert without discussing first. Springee (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah actually User:Springee it was you who have been reverting without discussion. With you just joining the discussion now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I supported the previous reversion. That made it 2:1 against thus the ONUS is on those who wish to include. Rather than justify the restoration you restored without discussion. Just saying "looks reasonable" isn't a justification when two other editors have said no. At that point it's on those who wish to include to start the discussion (or add to it) and attempt to address concerns. You are a seasoned editor, you shouldn't be missing things like this. Springee (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No actually you did not join this discussion until now and instead simple reverted without writing anything here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Did you write anything here before reverting two editors? Did you bother to ask what the objections were? "Looks reasonable" is hardly a compelling argument for a change after objections. Springee (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

An "Abolish the NRA" sign being carried during a March For Our Lives in Washington DC

Yes agree a picture of a "March of Our Lives" with an NRA related signs would be more on topic. Found and added one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would still object as UNDUE. As has been said a number of times, this is a near century and a half old organization. We don't need to give that much space to a recent protest. Springee (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Doc, please wait for others to review your proposed change before adding the image. It's clear we are (or should be) in the discuss part of this cycle and past BOLD. Springee (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

• The new photo [2] seems appropriate to me. Although a single protest may be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it is representative of the "Public Opinion and Image" and "Criticism" sections which make up a significant part of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I missed that that one was added when I removed the other one. My UNDUE concerns apply there as well. First, while I agree that there are general anti-NRA messages when gun control marches happen, there are also a lot of examples of people supporting the NRA. We don't have those pictures included. Also, that picture is not about the public opinion of the organization rather of a specific march. If the section is about public opinion why discuss a particular gun control march? So my view is either balance it with a pro-NRA image or remove it. Springee (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless we have a way to photograph the public's opinion of an organization, any image is going to come from a specific event that represents the overall concept. And if you know of a pro-NRA image that you think should be included, please do so or post it here for discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better to avoid the issue entirely. Consider this, what if we don't have a "NRA supporting" image that we can use? For example, images of people defending their 2nd A rights might be appropriate here [[3]] but do we have any acceptable pictures in our archives? So if we don't have one in the archive then we can't balance the negative image. Better to simply not include it to avoid balance issues. Springee (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have found some pro-NRA images: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

None of those photos are 'pro-NRA'. Anastrophe (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, those aren't "pro-NRA" rather gun rights pictures. One shows a person in an NRA hat but that's it. Again, this presents a NPOV issue. The pictures also aren't important to conveying the information in the section. At this point I think we don't have a consensus to include the new pictures. Springee (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is about the image added (not any other, that is a different issue), and no I do not see what it added (but my objection was not really to the image, but the fact the edit also include textual changes that was not made clear in the edit summery.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

• Doc James, there is no consensus for either image [[11]]. The discussion regarding the image in the survey section was discussed above. I argued that it was UNDUE because it presents a negative view without a counterbalancing positive view. At the same time the image does not enhance the text/subject of the material in the section. Tobby72 suggested some images that could be used to balance the presentation but as Anastrophe noted, none were "pro-NRA". We simply don't have consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The "National March on the NRA" in August 2018

Not seeing were this image is being discussed? Looks fairly appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed just a few lines above. Several pictures were suggested to balance this one. No consensus for a balancing picture was found. "Looks fairly appropriate" is not MOS. Please explain why you think it's NPOV and why it enhances the section where it was added. That section starts by showing the NRA has significant support in the general public. So given the text how is a single, highly negative image appropriate? What policy/guideline supports inclusion? Where is the consensus for inclusion? This isn't a long time stable image so consensus for inclusion is needed. Springee (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For reference here is more recent polling data which puts the NRA at just over 50% favorable [[12]]. How do we justify using only a negative image in that section? Are you willing to say that is per MOS? Springee (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, if you can't come up with a policy or guideline based reason for keeping the image then don't restore it. This is a new image and there isn't consensus for inclusion. ONUS is on you for inclusion. Springee (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the section on public opinion based on the following reasons.

• No consensus for inclusion. This was a newly added image thus onus is on those wishing to include.
• The image does not align with the text. Per MOS:IRELEV the image should help illustrate the concept of the section, it should not be decorative. The section is presenting poling information that is largely balanced between support and opposition to the NRA (leaning somewhat in favor of support). The image is clearly negative only and is from an rally associated with the 2018 March for Life. This isn't a good image to illustrate the poling data.
• The image is UNDUE. If we take this image to illustrate public mood or perception of the NRA (which is somewhat OR if we do) then the image should be balanced or even with the message of the text. The text is not 100% negative on the NRA so why include a 100% negative image in the section. As mentioned above the UNDUE aspect could be balanced with a "pro-NRA" image but we still would have the MOS problem.

For these reasons I have removed the image. If this is seen as a problem I think the next step is a NPOVN discussion. Springee (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning and am not seeing consensus for its removal. You could try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So what is your counter argument? WP:Consensus says we need to try to address all legitimate concerns. Failing to do so or an inability to provide a policy based argument for a change undermines consensus for the change. Also, WP:CONSENSUS states In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. If we don't have consensus for inclusion then we don't include. Springee (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting my disagreement with your (Springee) argumentation. Add an image from both the sides of the debate, if you wish, at best. ∯WBG^converse 18:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, OK, with that I accept that consensus opinion doesn't currently support removal of the picture. However, I would be interested to know why you feel that it doesn't violate NPOV to include a clearly one sided illustration that doesn't align with the text. I'll add one of the images suggested by Tobby72. Springee (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Washington, NRA president?

@Objective3000:, I saw that you reversed an IP edit adding Thomas Washington as NRA president between 1993 and 1995. A search for the name doesn't bring up much but he does appear to have been the NRA president until his death in 1995 [[13]]. I didn't see anything about it in my brief search of the archives. I'm normally very suspicious of IP edits here but it appears to have been correct (though without sourcing). What issue did you see? Springee (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A one edit addition with no source doesn't pass, IP or not. If you have a source, feel free.... O3000 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that thinking and your concerns. Springee (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE material added

The material added here [[14]] 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" [[15]]. 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[16] 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 [17][18], 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)

References