This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikeyboyaz(talk | contribs) at 00:45, 1 August 2018(adding small section to identify typos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:45, 1 August 2018 by Mikeyboyaz(talk | contribs)(adding small section to identify typos)
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.
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. Ifconsensus 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Basma95 (article contribs).
Russell Brandom (March 6, 2018). "How gun buffs took over Wikipedia's AR-15 page". The Verge. Archived from the original on March 6, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2018. WP:Firearms members rallied to defend language on the page calling the NRA "the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization," a claim often made by the NRA and recently repeated on Fox & Friends.
No, this doesn't need more weight. Until we have something saying the NRA was an active participant vs a passive entity why put this here? The NRA wasn't the only organization she targeted and again we have nothing that says the NRA was a willing or active participant vs an unwilling conduit. However, much of the text seems written to imply guilt. That is not OK per WP:NPOV nor WP:RECENT. Editors need to remember that this isn't a newspaper but an article that would hopefully stand the test of time. That means we should wait until the story is clear vs adding new bite after news bite. Springee (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Springee makes an argument that has little basis in Wikipedia policy. We don't wait for an event to unfold to an editor's arbitrary standard of active or passive involvement. A simple review of sources makes it very clear that this is very relevant to the NRA. For example"
"A Russian woman with ties to a senior Russian government official was charged in Washington on Monday with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation, including by building ties to the leadership of the National Rifle Association and other conservative political organizations." — The Washington Post
"At the behest of a senior Russian government official, the woman, Mariia Butina, made connections through the National Rifle Association, religious organizations and the National Prayer Breakfast to try to steer the Republican Party toward more pro-Russia policies, court records show. Privately comparing herself to a Soviet Cold War propagandist, she worked to infiltrate American organizations and establish “back channel” lines of communication with American politicians." — The New York Times
"One of the Americans she worked with said one month before the 2016 presidential election they were working on a "VERY" private line of communication between the Kremlin and one political party through a gun rights organization, believed to be the National Rifle Association, according to court documents. Butina was involved with a Russian gun group that the National Rifle Association was supportive of and has met several Republican politicians, as evidenced in photos she took with them." — CNN
We will have to wait to se what the connection is between this, the NRA's $30 million spend to get Trump elected, and Trump shocking press conference with Putin. Meanwhile, this is relevant to this subject, so briefly covering in the article is required per WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked weight and consensus were policy. Notnews also applies. Notnews is also relevant. The recent RfC made the length of this section clear. This is new information about the Russian involvement in the 2016 election but not about any roll the NRA might have played. You are correct in saying we will have to wait but that means we wait until the NRA's roll (deliberate or otherwise) is clear. This new information is not about the NRA and the outcome of the RfC is clear and still stands. This new addition doesn't tell us anything about the subject of the article. Perhaps we should also review COATRACK. Springee (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC merely establishes that a few sentences are the required minimum. It absolutely does not prohibit us from adding more than that; it just establishes that more than that is not strictly required. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If policy-based arguments count toward consensus, then I think Tomwsulcer is on solid footing. So far, you oppose because you object to the article being updated until the connection with the NRA is proven or admitted to by the NRA (paraphrasing; please correct me if that's wrong). Two editors seem to agree with you, but are not contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.- MrX 🖋 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tom's comment above wasn't even a complete sentence. Is that your standard? The to editors have made their views clear. We have no consensus and as an experienced editor you should know (and respect) that. You had a chance to build your case in the RfC. Springee (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Casprings, this isn't new insight into the NRA's roll in the story. Adding another paragraph that had basically nothing to do with the NRA is not something that has WEIGHT. You can say the NRA was involved thus it had weight but we don't have enough information to say one way or the other (the sources don't say anything new with respect to the NRA's involvement). Sorry, this is an encyclopedia (see wp:notnews) and we don't add sound bites. This is why the RFC said limited coverage of this topic. Springee (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please cite some source that state that this has nothing to do with the NRA, if there are any? Thank you.- MrX 🖋 11:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I didn't say that why would I answer such a question? Perhaps you confused where I said the new paragraph added to the article had nothing to do with the NRA? This isn't the Russian collision article. Since this adds nothing new about the NRA's part in the affair how does it have sufficient weight for yet another paragraph in the article? Regardless, we don't have consensus here and we do have a number of editors weighing in. Consensus is policy and the text should be removed. Springee (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we include a picture of the Maria affidavit in this article? The affidavit specifically does not mention the NRA and in fact takes effort to avoid naming the NRA! Even if we grant that the arrest of Butina is significant enough to add a new paragraph to the article (thus far consensus doesn't support the addition) on what possible grounds could it be reasonable to include a picture of the affidavit document that does not name the NRA so prominently? Is this what people think passes for encyclopedic? Springee (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the general topic is already included in the article. Do you have any reason why this NEW material, text that didn't mention any NRA involvement (or even the NRA) should be added against the closing of the recent RfC on the subject? Springee (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previous comments and the numerous sources that explicitly make this connection. Why delay this information and keep our readers in the dark? - MrX 🖋 12:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer would be to build an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. To gain actual perspective and insight verses breaking news. PackMecEng (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, and I thought the obvious answer was to "stall as long as possible with regard to anything that reflects badly on the organization". Silly me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a perspective. Here at Wikipedia we don't omit content simply because it came from news sources. This is a compendium of all knowledge, including the knowledge that Russian agents sought a back channel to Trump via the NRA coinciding with the NRA pumping unprecedented amounts of money into getting Trump elected.- MrX 🖋 14:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that isn't why WP:NOTNEWS was mentioned. Look at your just stated reason for inclusion. It talks about Trump and Russian involvement. All of that suggests weight for inclusion somewhere in Wikipdiea. That doesn't mean it goes here. The only thing we have that relates the Russian involvement story to the NRA is that currently it is alleged that the NRA was used as a gateway. It is not alleged that the NRA participated knowingly or did anything wrong. What new information about the NRA's part in this story has changed with this new news? Nothing. Yet we have added a full paragraph to the article AND a picture (!?) of the government document. This is ridiculous that people would even think that a picture of the document that doesn't name the NRA should be included. Springee (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how perspective works... On Wikipedia we look for long term expert opinions of people that can look back at events and judge them properly outside the breaking news cycle. So give the talking points a little rest. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to have a look at what this liberal rag has to say about it:
"Before and after her arrival in Washington, the FBI alleges, Ms. Butina was part of the Kremlin’s surreptitious effort to influence U.S. policy toward Moscow, working at the direction of a high-level Russian official as she sought to cultivate friendships with people who might have influence in D.C.
She focused her efforts especially on people associated with a gun-rights organization that isn’t named in the court papers but is identifiable as the National Rifle Association. NRA officials didn’t return repeated phone calls and emails seeking comment." — The Wall Street Journal
Oh good, so now it's not even positive she was trying to work with the NRA. But a gun-rights organization that is possibly the NRA. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This new material doesn't add any information regarding any NRA involvement. We had a long and well subscribed RfC that was clear that only a brief mention should be included (which we already have). The Oppose votes are confusing the general notability of the topic with it's notability in context of the NRA article. This last bit is part of why the RfC closing said the material should be limited. Springee (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC did not say that it should be limited. It said that we should include a few sentences, and left open the possibility of including more than that based on our own decisions. If you want to restrict the size of the sentence, you're free to start another WP:RFC, but simply looking over the discussion here and there makes it pretty clear you would not succeed (just like you failed to make your case successfully in the RFC you are referencing.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote why you think the RfC says "minimum" vs say "maximum" a few sentences. To quote the closing (in it's entirety) "There is consensus to include a few sentences about this issue."[[3]] How can one honestly claim that means "a few or perhaps a lot"? @Sandstein: as closing editor. If they agree with Aquillion's opinion I will acquiesce. Springee (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support; there's sufficient coverage of this that connects it directly to the NRA that WP:DUE requires going into additional depth. Additionally, since people have referenced the RFC, I should point out that I don't think expanding the text would violate it - I read the close as saying that a few sentences are the minimum, not that there is a consensus against adding anything beyond that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed in this new coverage with regards to the NRA's part in this story? The coverage doesn't make any new claims as to what the NRA's involvement was. It also seems like people aren't reviewing what was actually added given the picture of a document was included in these edits. Springee (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of collusion. NRA => Butina => indictment is relevant, well-referenced, important. And the story is going to get bigger as more is learned about how the Putin kleptocrats funneled $$$ to GOPers via the NRA.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is why WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are both important here. Also, again we need to remember this is an article about the NRA, not the Russia election story. It's worth noting that the criteria to become a "Lifetime NRA member" appears to be little more than paying a one time $1500 membership fee. Springee (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's hilarious how these discussions go. "It's UNDUE!!!!". Here's two dozen reliable sources. "It's NOTNEWS!!!!!". This goes back at least several months. "It's WP:RECENT!!!!!!". Sigh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is not enough, nor is it always evident. I agree with Volunteer Marek. Some of these oppose arguments just seem lazy. You almost have to laugh to avoid crying.- MrX 🖋 02:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies to the "for" arguments. I haven't seen anyone answer questions as to how this shows something new about the NRA or it's involvement nor why we would violate the RfC closing by drastically increasing the length of the text in question. That mass of articles are all saying the same thing but most of that is not about the NRA and thanks to syndication how much of this is different vs just repeating the same information in many sources? Springee (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. Springee has a long history of making edits that are almost exclusively pro-NRA POV and therefore has proven his/her bias. Editors without an agenda want this material noted briefly. WP:NOTNEWS applies to routine coverage, not information about alleged russian spies in the US which - in all cases - gets analysis in media and later in books because of the geopolitical implications. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact that this is a new development and that there is no conclusive evidence that the NRA played a active role in this, I don't think anything should be added, especially since this development has adds nothing about the NRA. As we already have a consensus about this on RFC. Afootpluto (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that changed is she was charged with a crime. That is it, maybe the change in the text should reflect that. But more weight shouldn't be added. Especially since there is no new evidence that the NRA played an active role in this. Afootpluto (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I took the liberty of moving these comments as they seem to be regarding adding material vs the compromise edit. Please revert if this isn't correct. Springee (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Afootpluto's comments. The big concern is WP:UNDUE. This is not an article about the Russian involvement, it's about the NRA. The additional news is about subjects other than the NRA. In an effort to compromise between the length and adding new information MrX and I have been working on a compromise text below. Hopefully this will satisfy those who object based on weight and those who want new material. Springee (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose having an entire section and two paragraphs on it. Having an entire paragraph on events from a single day is WP:RECENTISM (nothing of significance was even proven if I'm not mistaken, but even if it is, the paragraphs should be merged). "believed to be the NRA" seriously?! This content probably doesn't belong per WP:ONEWAY too, in adition to WP:UNDUE. Support including further developments (of significance). wumbolo^^^21:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "believed to be the NRA" because that's paraphrasing what sources wrote. While the arrest occurred in the course of one day, investigations and indictments obviously take much longer. This investigation has been going on for months. WP:ONEWAY does not apply since this is not a "fringe theory". WP:UNDUE is suspect given the extensive international coverage.- MrX 🖋 01:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why have a picture of a document?
Since at least three editors have added/restored this picture of a document [[14]], was that intentional or just part of a general restoration? Can we at least agree that it's silly to have a picture of a document? Springee (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary: the picture of the affidavit is not exactly helpful; I think the article can do without. There are pictures of Butina with La Pierre [15], but I suspect they are not in public domain. That would have been a relevant photo; an image of a legal document does not add to the article much. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise edit
As an effort to come up with a compromise are editors who support inclusion OK with the following:
McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[17] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign."[18][19][20] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[17][21] The FBI is investigating whether Torshin funneled money to the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential campaign through the NRA.[22][23] Butina was arrested on July 15, 2018 and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation.[24]
Changes: I removed the picture of the affidavit. I'm not sure if a link to the affidavit is a primary source issue but I wouldn't object to including it as a reference after the NPR reverence ([24] in the proposed text). The Butina paragraph was cut down to state she was arrested and added to the end of the previous paragraph where she was first mentioned. The rest of the paragraph, removed, is quoted below for reference.
According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank.
I hope this will make for a reasonable compromise between UNDUE length and details that aren't related to the NRA and those who feel this new information must be included. Springee (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the picture is that useful, but we should to add: "Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, a group with which she has deep ties."[16][17] - MrX 🖋 00:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out how to rephrase it a bit based on the WSJ article. That article makes it clear she targeted a range of gun groups, not just the NRA, and that many felt her efforts were genuine. Quoting from the WSJ, "The allegations against Ms. Butina surprised those in the American gun-rights community who have expressed admiration for her efforts to expand gun ownership in Russia, where it comes with many restrictions." If we add this perhaps we can compress the Torshin material a bit. It was added without consensus (about an even mix of editor for and against) so some trimming for space shouldn't hurt. Springee (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New suggestion: Similar to before but the sentence starting with "In May, Democrats..." was compressed by removing the quote and adding funding to the list of "accessing and assisting". This saves words without removing content. The sentence "The FBI is investigating" was shortened and moved to just after the Judiciary committee statement since they discuss the same thing. This reduces length without removing content.
McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[17] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing, assisting and funding Mr. Trump and his campaign through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina.[18][19][20] The FBI is investigating these claims.[22][23] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[17][21] Butina was arrested on July 15, 2018 and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation. Her (should this include "alleged" per BOLP?) efforts "shocked those in American gun-rights community" where her efforts targeted gun rights groups including cultivating ties inside of the NRA.[18][19]
I believe the current version is better, not to say that I couldn't be improved. "Shocking the American gun-rights community" is so not the point of all this.- MrX 🖋 02:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article current version or the previously discussed version. The article current version is too long (per RfC) but I think much of that can be dealt with judiciously. I admit, the "shocking" part wasn't that great. The issue I have is the WSJ doesn't imply wrong doing on the part of the NRA (or any other gun-rights organization). That shouldn't be lost in all this. Perhaps that means we should add an additional sentence. However, I also want to make sure we keep the overall length under control. Are you OK with the edits other than the last sentence? Can we come up with a compromise version of the last sentence? Springee (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are way past the RfC. Consensus has obviously changed. The coverage in reliable sources has grown exponentially. Perhaps we could orient our arguments around what sources say? That's what matters.- MrX 🖋 03:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The new information isn't something like "NRA executive caught taking Russian bribes". This is big news regarding the Russian involvement story but what has changed regarding the NRA's roll in this story? Springee (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Next try:
McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[17] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing, assisting and funding Mr. Trump and his campaign through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina.[18][19][20] The FBI is investigating these claims.[22][23] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[17][21] Butina was arrested on July 15, 2018 and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation. Her efforts were directed toward people associated with gun-rights organizations including the National Rifle Association, a group with which she cultivated ties.[20][21]
This is basically MrX's last two sentences with slight changes added to the second try that compressed the older material. Springee (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX:, this material is subject to active discussion and currently there is not a consensus for inclusion. It is not reasonable to continue to add new material while the talk page discussion is in process. [[22]] Springee (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added: "Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, with which she has deep ties." What part of the sentence do you object to and why. Be sure to look at the sources please.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we go through this every time. By my count eight editors tacitly or explicitly support this material, while four oppose it. That is indicative of a consensus to include.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we use those numbers we still have only a weak consensus (four +) and remember we also have well attended RfC that applies and the disputed material is very recent. I would rather focus on the compromise text so we can have a win-win for all. Springee (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is 8 to 4 with no notification and people who have weighed in as part of the previous discussion haven't weighed in yet. Again, let's go for compromise. Springee (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the current version (which appears to have consesus):
On 15 July, 2018, Butina was arrested and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation.[1] According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, with which she has deep ties.[2][3]
That's not all of the section nor even all of the recently added material. The full section is below. This is a lot more than just a few sentences. We can condense much of this without removing content. I think we have general agreement that the picture can go. I would assume there is a primary article on this. Why not link it there vs adding more material here? The current local consensus is only 4 editors in favor of adding the extra material (not considering argument quality on either side). One of the issues raised in the RfC that is still valid now is how much of this is about the NRA vs something the Russians did? We have an extensive article on the subject [[23]] with a related section. We should link to it then limit length here. The larger RfC was closed saying the length should be limited. Anyway, I think my condensed text above is a good compromise. Springee (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
===Russian influence===
Maria Butina was arrested on July 15, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special CounselRobert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[1] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign."[2][3][4] Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.[1][5] The FBI is investigating whether Torshin funneled money to the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential campaign through the NRA.[6][7]
On 15 July, 2018, Butina was arrested and charged with conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation.[8] According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. Her efforts were directed toward people associated with an organization believed to be the National Rifle Association, with which she has deep ties.[9][10]
^Greg Gordon and Peter Stone, 17 May 2018, Sidney Morning Herald, Russia used NRA to aid Trump campaign, documents suggest: Democrats, Retrieved May 25, 2018, "... Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a report on Wednesday that their preliminary investigation turned up "a number of documents" suggesting Russia used connections to the NRA "as a means of accessing and assisting Mr Trump and his campaign."..."
OK, here is a diff showing your proposed changes. My two major objections are the removal of this
"According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank."
and the addition of "... gun-rights organizations including...".
and changing "deep ties" to "cultivated ties".- MrX 🖋 22:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for collaborating on this. Starting with the second, how about "cultivating deep ties"? The WSJ and other sources make it clear the ties were long standing so much as ones she spent years building thought the guise of establishing a gun rights group in Russia. That is why I picked the word "cultivate" However, I also agree the ties were clearly deep.
Can we condense the "According to..." sentence down without impacting content? What about
"According to the affidavit [link to doc] from 2015 through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of Russian who was a high level government official and official at the Russian Central Bank."
I'm not sure why the official at the Russian Central Bank is significant and would suggest cutting even more to "...Butina worked at the direction of a high-level Russian government official". The key point being she was working on behalf of a foreign government, not so much the foreign bank. Springee (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX:, while I'm trying to keep length down I'm going to suggest adding a topic sentence to the paragraph and having it link to the primary 2016 Russian election article's NRA section [[24]]. Clearly this is a VERY big deal and a very big topic and it seems odd that we don't link to the primary topic. This also might allow for a rework of the current McClatchy intro sentence which, more and more, isn't a good topic sentence for the whole paragraph. Springee (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First try so feel free to object and/or modify. Since we now have an affidavit I don't think we need to put as much emphasis on McClatchy. The first sentence isn't as elegant as I would like so suggestions would be welcome there. I used "suspected" with Torshin since I believe that is all that BLP would allow.
A federal investigation
Russian attempts to influence US politics has resulted in accusations against Russian citizens of developing and exploiting ties with the NRA to influence US politics and support the 2016 Trump election campaign. The deputy governor Central Bank of Russia, Aleksandr Torshin, is suspected to have illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.[78] In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign." ...(continued as suggested in previous discussions)
A federal investigation Russian attempts to influence US politics has resulted in accusations against Russian citizens of developing and exploiting ties with the NRA to influence US politics and support the 2016 Trump election campaign. The deputy governor Central Bank of Russia, Aleksandr Torshin, is suspected to have illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign.
I think it's missing some important information. How about this instead:
A federal investigation by Special CounselRobert Mueller and the FBI resulted in indictments of Russian agents on charges of developing and exploiting ties with the NRA to influence US politics. The deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia, Aleksandr Torshin, is suspected of illegally funneling money through the NRA to benefit Trump's 2016 campaign.
It may needs some further tweaking, but I think this is a bit closer to the what sources have reported.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, I'm OK with that but it my understanding is that the Butina arrest didn't come out of Mueller's investigation. Rather it came out of a different investigation that may have started prior to Mueller's work. The NPR article doesn't mention Mueller hence why I left Mueller out. I don't mind putting Mueller in there but I want to make sure we don't give credit to Mueller's investigation if another group was actually responsible. If all of this is under the Mueller investigation then I'm fine with your suggestions. Springee (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear if the Butina arrest had anything to do with the Mueller investigation, but I do know the FBI was involved. Perhaps there's a way to word it so that we don't imply that Meuller's investigation is related to Butina's arrest.- MrX 🖋 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the lead and body we have a source from a 1999 poll[25] saying they are the most powerful. But actually looking into it that does not seem to be the case at least from a numbers standpoint. They do not even make the top 50 for dollars spent. [26] It could resonably be argued they are the most powerful guns rights lobby, but not lobbyist in general.[27] This should be updated. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the refs above but I think it sounds a bit iffy to quantify the influence of different advocacy groups so precisely (I see the lede currently ranks the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobby groups which is also iffy). It should be enough to simply describe the group as highly influential on the national and state level and/or recount specific successes. I wrote a short paragraph about the group's influence here (the last paragraph under "political expansion")[28] and I think that the lede could incorporate both the ref and some of the text in that paragraph for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a lot more reasonable and correct to me. Could even take the first sentence "The NRA has been described as influential in shaping American gun control policy." and replace the one in the lead with that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also support that change. In reading on the subject it appears the NRA is influential not because of spending but because of effective organization combined with motivated membership. Springee (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, "most influential" does not mean "highest contributors." I have no problem dropping the "top three" ranking. But I think it's important to note not only that the NRA is influential in shaping American gun control policy, but also that it's one of the more effective/influential lobbying groups generally. Important cites:
"The NRA's rank as the most powerful lobby is once again a reflection of the group's influence at the polls much more so than its economic might." Scott Melzer, Gun Crusaders: The NRA's Culture War (NYU Press, 2009), p. 234.
"The NRA is one of the most powerful and politically influential public interest lobbying groups in the US..." Kelly LeRoux & Mary K. Feeney, Nonprofit Organizations and Civil Society in the United States (Routledge, 2013), p. 218.
"The NRA, founded in 1871, is currently one of the most powerful single-issue groups in the United States." Barbara Bardes, Mack Shelley & Steffen Schmidt, American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials (2009-10 ed.: Wadsworth, 2010), p. 246.
I would be fine with "The NRA has been influential in shaping American gun control policy, and is seen as among the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States." Neutralitytalk02:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, we both have relatively recent, though not that recent reliable sources offering different opinions on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are equating the two ThinkProgress op-eds and one survey you linked below (which deal with public opinion and not influence) to the three academic works I cite above? Neutralitytalk02:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah more recent (less than a decade old) sources that are all about the NRA specifically and not burred in general books that make little mention of them. The only source that makes prominent mention is "Gun Crusaders: The NRA's Culture War" which is a questionable source in general. I like in "American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials 2008" the quote is in a pop up section titled "Making a difference" and not a big focus elsewhere. Just saying yes other more modern sources disagree with that assessment. Perhaps a compromise, something making note that these days people also disagree with the assessment they are one of the most powerful? PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 1999 story was a survey of individual people, not a scientific study. In short, it was opinion only. Pegging the NRA as the third-most-influential lobby group is unfounded in science, regardless of this ridiculous survey. The numbers do not support it, and the NRA spends no more than $3M a year on lobbying. This is a pittance compared with Pharmaceutical groups or Agricultural groups. The way it is currently written sounds politically biased, and political bias has no place in Wikipedia, all evidence to the contrary aside. DeeJaye6 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to hide the NRA's obviously immense lobbying power behind a pretence that such power only comes from the amount of money spent sounds to me like political bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that an organisation with so many members, all reading NRA political views, can have so little influence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, I am not trying to pick a fight here; I am simply trying to separate something that can be shown in evidence vs. something that you and others "feel" is correct, but cannot offer hard evidence to support. (And a simple survey of private individuals is not evidence of anything other than public belief.) As the guidelines say, stay objective, and deal with fact.DeeJaye6 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally neutral on this but the source offered by Moxy is just citing the same 1999 study that PackMecEng is concerned about. Springee (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct.it's a Grest example of how things hAve not changed.. as the scholarly Community had not seen a change....it goes into details of modern stats.-many more sources can be found but this one explains the reasoning behind the statement and how it still holds true. Moxy (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm coming late to this discussion, but it's absurd to challenge the notion that the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. - perhaps THE most powerful in terms of getting voters to the polls on a single issue, in their case gun rights. It is well known that their "report card" can make or break a candidate.[34] Here's a sample of sources pointing out their power: [35] --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is what they are powerful on, single issue gun control. Past that they do not have much breath of power compared to other groups. That is even evident in all the sources shown in this section, they all preface it by saying power in gun related areas. In the grand scheme of what groups are impacting legislation, unless it is gun related, the NRA has no say. So are they powerful on a single issue? Sure absolutely! But are they powerful compared to others or the other 99% of issues? Not so much. PackMecEng (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Name for me two or three other lobbying groups that have the power to totally prevent any action whatsoever by Congress on their issue, no matter how minor the proposed action or how much public support it has - or to make or break a candidate based solely on their support or opposition. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AIPAC, maybe - in terms of the ability to block anything in Congress that they don’t like, but not in terms of being able to make or break an officeholder except in a few very specific jurisdictions. NAACP, NARAL? They only wish they had that kind of influence! We have all seen dozens of state legislatures pass discriminatory or anti-abortion legislation, and only the courts can block them; these groups are powerless. Likewise the AFL-CIO, which had that kind of power 50 years ago but is almost completely powerless now. AARP possibly does exert that kind of influence, by shouting “Save Medicare!” in the same way the NRA shouts “they’re going to take your guns!” But the others you name? Not even close. (And now it's probably time to hat this as straying off topic.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AIPAC has just as much if not more power than the NRA.[36] AARP is no joke either, and well past a single issue crowd.[37] NAACP, I don't think I have to say anymore on that one. No one can legitimately question the impact of them endorsing or more importantly condemning a candidate.[38][39] NARAL is more single issue than most mentioned but still powerful due to their good numbers and dedicated people.[40][41] Finally the AFL-CIO like the NRA was a lot more powerful than now, so basically on par with the NRA these days. Though you cannot give that much money and have over 13 million members (you know over twice as many as the NRA) and say with a straight face they don't matter anymore. [42][43] So looking at it objectivly all those are at least as powerful as the NRA, most of them more so. So what is the objection? PackMecEng (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So at this point we have no sources that rebutt what we have. So no guess work ....all we can do is regurgitate the sources we have till something new pops up.--Moxy (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree.....but what I am saying its best to say what the sources say be they older or not till we have new academic publications stating differently. --Moxy (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are these so called changes where are the academic publications supports this assertion? So far all we have is an editor telling us it's changed.--Moxy (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) --Moxy (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will dig up some more sources later today, but really "so called"? Also are we talking or are you referring to someone else when you say "an editor"? Kind of strange... PackMecEng (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, I'm not sure I would put too much weight into that source for being out of an academic press. I'm not saying no weight but remember, it's a book vs a journal paper and it's simply citing the earlier work. It's not a recent study affirming earlier work. I could believe that some of this is self fulfilling prophesy or repeating common knowledge. That said, I also haven't seen much to challenge the claim. Alternatively we could date the intro claim. Would it be better to make the intro claim less definitive and then add this discussion to the body? Springee (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, folks, the simple fact is, every site that talks about the "influence" of the NRA and how "powerful" they are couches that statement in "the most powerful special-interest lobby" or "the most powerful gun support group" or some such. MelanieN, above, gives a link to the Center for Responsive Politics that actually contradicts what they report in their "Open Secrets" link that I posted, above. If you cannot post facts that support calling them this, then this is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. The fact is that the NRA does not even show up in the top *50* lobbying groups in the US. Yes, that is about money. Are there other ways to be influential? Of course. But none that are measurable; even pointing out that they have influenced the passing of laws, *which* laws? And were those laws more important than other laws? Who is to say? And that puts this argument to rest. This is Wikipedia: facts or nothing. Please no more opinion or emotion. DeeJaye6 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now back to the sources... if any rebut these pls bring them forward...cant bases our article on editors guess work.--Moxy (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Melzer (2013). Gun Crusaders: The NRA's Culture War. NYU Press. p. 234. ISBN978-0-8147-6450-3. The NRA's rank as the most powerful lobby is once again a reflection of the group's influence at the polls much more so than its economic might
Robert J. Spitzer (2015). Politics of Gun Control. Taylor & Francis. p. 167. ISBN978-1-317-26462-0. Fortune Magazine's pronouncement on May 28, 2001, that the NRA had become the most powerful lobby
@Moxy: My issue is most powerful lobby in general. Even the source you mention all make clear that they are, in regards to gun related issues. So how about a compromise, we take the quote above and clarify to gun related issues something like. "The NRA has been the most powerful lobbying group influencing American gun control policy." That would be in line with the sources cited and give a clear window into the scope. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course is not the world most powerful lobby group...is all about the guns. I think we have some people lost about what is being talked about. Yes most influential GUN group.--Moxy (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sounds like we had some crossed wires then. I have no problem with stating in wiki's voice that they are the most powerful guns lobby. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the sources presented above, it would be fine to say that they are the most powerful gun lobby, but we should also add that they are one of the most powerful single-issue lobbying groups (or public interest lobbying groups) in the US. Otherwise, we are understating the facts.- MrX 🖋 11:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree they are one of the most powerful single issue lobbies, but that is a bit redundant with powerful gun lobby. Would it be better to swap gun lobby for single issue lobby? PackMecEng (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The offending line reads, "Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC." This is ridiculous. And saying that they are the "most influential gun lobby group" is also nonsense. No one could readily name another gun lobby group. Just drop the misleading line altogether! DeeJaye6 (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott Meltzer - your article just quotes the Fortune article again, which is only *opinion*, not *fact*. @David DeGrazia and Gregg Lee Carter - your articles specify that the NRA is the most powerful "gun lobby group" in the country. @Robert Spitzer, your carefully chosen quote is just the Fortune magazine *opinion* all over again. What precedes that quote in the article lists actual cases proving the lack of power in the NRA. These are facts, not opinion or emotion. Case: CLOSED. DeeJaye6 (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The NRA-Russia-Trump connection
More information connecting the NRA with Russia is coming to light. The connection is complex, but obvious. It involves senior NRA officers, Torshin, Butina and the Trump campaign. Here are some excerpts that we might be able to use:
In December 2015, an NRA delegation including Pete Brownell, then the NRA’s first vice-president, and David Keene, a past NRA president, visited Russia for an expedition partly funded by Right To Bear Arms, a Russian pro-gun group run by Butina with help from Torshin, her alleged government handler. — The Guardian
"However, Nikolaev’s son Andrey, who is studying in the United States, volunteered in the 2016 campaign in support of Trump’s candidacy, according a person familiar with his activities. Nikolaev was spotted at the Trump International Hotel in Washington during Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, according to two people aware of his presence.
In a court filing last week, prosecutors said Butina’s emails and chat logs are full of references to a billionaire as the “funder” of her activities. They wrote that the billionaire is a “known Russian businessman with deep ties to the Russian Presidential Administration.”" — The Washington Post
"Butina began cultivating American contacts. In 2013, John Bolton, now Trump’s national security adviser, appeared in a Russian gun rights video that Right to Bear Arms used for pro-gun lobbying in Russia. Bolton was reportedly asked to appear in the video by David Keene, a recent president of the NRA, who had become acquainted with Torshin.
In April 2014, Butina flew to Indianapolis for the NRA convention. She posted photographs to the Russian social network VK showing that she mixed with Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s pugnacious vice-president, along with heavyweight Republicans including Bobby Jindal, then governor of Louisiana, and Rick Santorum, a former US senator and presidential candidate." — The Guardian
"Mr. Torshin is ardently pro-Trump, and on numerous occasions since 2015 has posted Twitter messages about the president. In a post in February 2016, Mr. Torshin wrote: “Maria Butina is now in the USA. She writes to me that D. Trump (NRA member) really is for cooperation with Russia.”" — The New York Times
There is much more available. I'm not yet sure how this can be incorporated into this article.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I'm still trying to come up with a concise way of distilling all this and it may actually be better to wait until something more conclusive happens.- MrX 🖋
"Right to Bear Arms" interlanguage link to ru:Право на оружие (движение) ?
While scanning this page I happened upon a confusing sentence. It appears that with in the section "Litigation," 7th paragraph, the sentence immediately following citation [119] starts with "The requires city residents to..." most likely should state "The [ordnance] requires city residents to..." I yield changing the document to others with the ability and authority to do so. Mikeyboyaz (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Basma95 (article contribs).
PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
