Jump to content

Talk:National Rifle Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.36.157.242 (talk) at 18:57, 27 August 2020 (→The case for adding mention of links to the far-right). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You will soon find yourself fully blocked if you keep attacking other editors. WP:AGF WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not telling us why you think it is not undue. Why is this relevant, what does it tell us about the NRA?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we focus on the issue please. Why was the edit reverted? You are the one making the claim that my edit was 'undue' here. So, how and why is was it undue? What was wrong with the edit? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, no I am not. I said that was the stated reason someone undid it. Also read policy again, it is not down to us to justify exclusion, it is down to you to justify inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please collate here links to research, reports, and make a case to include mention of links to the far-right and white nationalist organisations.

It should go without saying that any organisation with links to the far-right would warrant mention of that on Wikipedia. There should be nothing controversial about adding simple, established matters of fact to an article.

There's at least one well-documented case of a link to the Australian far-right political party One-Nation.

Some research on the NRA, sociology and race:

WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem maybe one of implication. Whilst they may have links to one or two far right organisations, this is due to gun rights. The NRA backs anyone who is pro-gun [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would having in common the issue of gun rights, prohibit inclusion of the organisation's far-right links? What is your concern about implication? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That they back far right groups because they are far right, not because they are pro-gun.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that kinda obvious? They're a gun lobby group. I hear you, but qualifying these links as being solely around the issue of gun rights is incorrect. The research above shows that they share racist views with these groups, and even offer financial support to them. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do already hint at this. The problem is trying to used link to specific parties to try and make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hinting at something doesn't sound very encyclopaedic, I'm sure we can improve on that. Readers should be able to see any such connections clearly, such as by linking to the far-right page and any other relevant Wikipedia articles. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be very careful with what we add to an encyclopedia. You say that they offer financial support to far-right organizations. But the links you provided just say that a group asked them for funds. I don’t see where any were provided. Do they have links to white supremacist organizations. Personally, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But, that requires excellent sourcing. WP:IRS O3000 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly agree it's important to maintain a NPOV with subjects such as this. FYI the political support for One-Nation was recorded on camera [2][3]. Financial support is harder to assert as you say, but we can say there has been "support". WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WinstonSmith is right. There are ample sources indicating connections between the NRA and far-right groups, and they belong in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the next stage is to offer up a suggested edit (here on talk) to see if this can be worded in a way that meets the concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I would suggest restoring this edit: [4], which you and others such as User:Springee have been reverting for no apparent reason, and has resulted in an incident being raised on the admin noticeboard. So, is there anything wrong with my wording there? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were given a reason, it is about just one (very very minor) Australasian political party (also advice and support is not the same thing), as such its inclusion is wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also read wp:tendituous, you know that passage has been objected to, by at least 1 user (other may have rejected it for other reason, or for that reason), thus to continue to argue for inclusion of this passage might well be tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - the size of the political party is immaterial in this context, most far-right parties are small, fringe groups but are associated with a disproportionate level of violence and rhetoric. Advice is a type of support, it is disingenuous to suggest it is not.
The fact the party is Australian is not a valid reason to reject this text either. English Wikipedia has a global audience and the NRA has been shown above to have international links. There's also links to organisations in New Zealand, but one thing at a time. At present readers are not clearly alluded to these dealings with the far-right One-Nation party, only a vague mention of opposition to gun-law reform in Australia exists currently.
Can we also please focus on the content, and perhaps reach agreement by fleshing out the statement? Would mentioning who solicited the support, and who offered it help clarify things? Such as by saying something along the lines of 'the Australian far-right party one-nation sought out and received support or advice from the NRA?' What are your objections to that text? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never objected to it because they are Australian. The issue is they are not big enough, and thus this is not significant enough to warrant inclusion,. expanding it does not address that concern.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are speaking English: you put "(very very minor)" in brackets, making the size auxiliary to your objection that it was an Australian party. All registered Australian political parties have pages on Wikipedia, so they are already noteworthy. Nothing you have raised meets UNDUE criteria. I get the feeling you are not intent on engaging in good faith here. Would you be happy to seek a WP:3O on this? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure because in maths it would say that part is first, not ancillary. If you want to seek a third opinion go ahead, before you do note that I am not the only user who has objected to this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I see no stated objection to this being Australian.
  2. For the nth time, would you stop assuming bad faith. No one has exhibited bad faith in the least.
  3. If you can find a trend that’s one thing. But, having given some advice of some kind to one small party in the world is UNDUE.
  4. This page has 417 watchers. There is no reason to use 3O. Indeed, use of 3O on active politically related articles is highly unusual. O3000 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a mistake to assume this is a "small" party anyway. Their share of the vote was small given their clearly extremist views, but the leader of One-Nation is Pauline Hanson and it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else hasn't heard of her. Millions of Australians certainly have. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's even more unusual, is the repeated, tendentious reversions of the simple, matter-of-fact NPOV addition to the article I made. A third opinion is necessary in light of this belligerence. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear that this page is whitewashed by numerous pro-NRA POV warriors. Just even a quick read of the lede section would give a reader the false impression that all is well and good in gunland.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're responding to me, I personally think the NRA is one of the most dangerous organizations in the US, if not the most dangerous. That's no reason to ignore Wikipedia policies. O3000 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss our views on the NRA, or to defend ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe millions have, but this article is not about Australasia, its about the NRA. Thus material here has to be relevant to the readers understanding of who they are and what they represent. Them having had contacts with one minor (Australian) political party tells us nothing about their links to anything. Any more then my saying this should not be here means I am some agent of the NRA. You have been presented with a third option, re-write this to make it about a general trend, not one party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It tells us about the NRA's links to the far-right which is important and relevant information about the organisation currently missing from the article.
Australasian readers do need to be kept in mind and should not be discounted in such a way - they all have access and now have reason for interest in this article too. Especially considering recent terrorist events which highlights the importance of mentioning these links. Wikipedia English is international in nature and American readers are also entitled, and may well be curious to know about the NRA's international links to a far-right party in Australia anyway, because this is an established fact in contrast to the term "National" in the National Rifle Association.
One-Nation's political influence is not insignificant either. They have seats in the legislature and purport themselves to represent the interests of gun-owners in Australia. As already stated, all registered Australian political parties have Wikipedia articles, which attests to notability and refutes your claim of UNDUE.
We can only assert what is incontrovertible, making an ambiguous or general statement isn't improving the article as much as making concise mention of their dealings with this one far-right party.
Anecdotally, there's also responsible gun-rights advocates that detest the methods employed by the NRA, which is another reason to include the mention of any far-links. Inclusion of mention about far-right links should be made for the sake of responsible gun owners if nothing else. FWIW I hope you haven't assumed me to be "anti" guns or whatever. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, it tells us they have had some contact with A (one, singular, and minor) far right political party. The EDL have a page, the BNP have a page, none of those are major political parties.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The major point of difference between One-Nation and those parties, is the NRA hasn't been exposed by investigative journalists to be providing support to them, at least to my knowledge. I'm only asking to include mention of this simple matter of fact. The number one is infinitely more than zero. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last reply to you here, we are just going round in circles. I object to the inclusion of this, I have explained why, either an wp:RFC or wp:dr is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One Nation are most definitely not a “minor” party. However, there is no need to call them “far-right” (even though they are). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to disagree and I bear no animosity towards you BTW. There's just an elephant in the room, so to speak. That elephant is the subtle omission of any mention about links to far-right parties - there needs to be at least one clear and concise mention about the "far-right" - using that exact hyphenated and hyper-linked word I would suggest, for readers to be aware that the organisation does, in fact, deal with these types of people. Omission of relevant information is a form of bias. Please understand my concern comes at least in part from a position of responsible gun-owners being done a disservice by the NRA's dealings with the far-right. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the argumentum ad hominem. Address what people have said, such as making this about more then one pathetically small Australian party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said what that was ad hominem? I wouldn't even think about using emotive pejorative like 'pathetic' here on Wikipedia. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, people, lighten up. My comments were not directed at any contributors but at the slanted direction of the article. It wasn't an ad hominem attack but an ad articleslanted attack. It's a slanted article. Deserves a slanted article tag.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 3O has been launched [[5]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the NRA will have links to other far right organisations. Stands to reason, dunnit. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but then we say that (sourced to RS that say that).Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first (limited) chance to reply to any of this. I agree with Slatersteven, the linkage is too minor to mention on an article that covers so much ground. The paragraph in question says the NRA has opposed not just restrictive gun laws in the US but also ones in other countries. That they consulted with an Austrailian political party that sought their input on strategies for dealing with gun control isn't significant in the total scope of the article. The way the material was added that suggested the NRA was working with them because they are far right vs because of their stance on gun control is possibly SYN and certainly something that would need direct citations. Springee (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is very significant that the NRA should be dealing with any (one, or more) far-right political party, and that fact alone warrants it's inclusion. The wording did not allude to the NRA being far-right, at all. That perception is incorrect because the text clearly described the one-nation party as 'far-right', not the NRA. WP:CIR comes to mind because to read into that text and assume it paints the NRA as far-right is a reading comprehension issue. The citation was included, but you reverted it. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Wikipedia articles about other special interest groups routinely mention "links" to far-left groups?

Should lawsuits be mentioned in lead?

Both NY and DC filed suit 6 Aug (NY seeking dissolution of the org). They've been added to the body with refs; should a mention be added to the lead? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO not yet. If it develops into something bigger, perhaps. WP:NOTNEWS I'm also worried that My recent edit was a little harsh on the unsourced thing. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time. The lawsuits may go no where and thus shouldn't make it to the lead. If they succeed and close down the NRA then yes. We simply need to wait for this to play out first. Springee (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)h[reply]
Sorry to not have ventured here first, prior to adding. I disagree, nonetheless, in this particular case, if that's not obvious. As the suit was filed by a state's AG following an 18-month investigation, can one truly argue that the case may be inconsequential or frivolous? Were all charges to somehow be dismissed, the filing of the suit, based on a reportedly in-depth investigation, remains a prominent event in NRA history.Lindenfall (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has to do with whether this should be included in the lead.- MrX 🖋 11:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I see what Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has to do with including the suit in the lead. Lindenfall (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the scope and credibility of the lawsuits, it's likely that this will lead worthy. I think we should wait until there are further developments before adding it, for example if other states file lawsuits, or if NRA executive resign or are indicted. Politico[6] is reporting NRA's questionable payments to Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a story which will probably develop further. Reason and Mother Jones connect the lawsuits with the internal power struggle that broke last year and the 2020 election.[7][8] Chicago Tribune is reporting about the role of Ackerman McQueen.[9] The New York Times has reported that Jimmy Fallon said “That’s right, no more N.R.A., no more Confederate flags. This is turning into the worst year of Ted Nugent’s life,”.[10]. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong link. In essence we should not include this until its its done and dusted. Its an allegation, at this stage, when it becomes a conviction we can add it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conviction has no bearing on significance. The amount of coverage in reliable source does. - MrX 🖋 14:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this lawsuit were to remove members of the board or LaPeirre I don't agree that it would be DUE for the lead. As has been stated many times, this is a 100+ year old organization. Short of actually shuttering the NRA these lawsuits are probably less significant than the Cincinnati Revolt which doesn't make it to the lead. Also, there is clearly a large degree of politics going on here. Even if some of the leadership were 100% corrupt, the idea that such corruption would require shuttering the entire NRA vs removing leaders suggests that some politicians are seeing this as a new way to use the law against an adversary. I would favor putting some of the commentary noting the political nature of this lawsuits but it is probably premature at this point. [[11]][[12]][[13]]. The NRA's counter suit is also likely worth mentioning.[[14]] The National Review article probably is the best I've read so far in terms of pointing out why this looks like a politically motivated action rather than just a pure case of enforcing charity financial laws (some of which were likely broken) but the New Republic is also noting the same things even as they are clearly not sympathetic with the NRA in general. Springee (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this were only a lawsuit by a single state AG, I would probably agree, but this is part of a complex unraveling of the organization that was exposed more than a year ago. If the fraud charges stick, which I suspect they will, this will be a watershed moment in the organization's history. Thank you for showing sources that support the significance of this development. - MrX 🖋 14:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the Cincinnati Revolt isn't in the lead then this shouldn't be unless it actually shutters or breaks up the organization. It's not clear there is much unraveling nor that the sins of the NRA leadership (and I will take for granted they are true) are worse than those of many other not for profit organizations (see the NR article). Part of what makes this a big deal is the level of politics the AG appears to be injecting into the investigation. Take the New Republic's take. It suggests that the objective of disbanding the NRA is a very questionable use of the law. That's not so much about the NRA as it is about the AG and a possible abuse of power, the same way LA's attempt to force vendors to disclose if they are NRA members was a clear 1A problem on behalf of the city. It was not something the NRA did, they were basically the victim (see NR article for more details). Anyway, even if it is found that LaPierre abused his position and is legally removed I would oppose this being in the lead of the article as I think in the total scope of the organization, the 10 year view and the 30 year view it wouldn't be as significant as the Cincinnati Revolt and absent some unforeseen outcome new leadership will come in and the NRA will move on. The exception would be if it causes a true shift in the external behavior of the NRA. That is something that only time will tell. Springee (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Did the Cincinnati Revolt involve fraud and misuse of millions of dollars of charitable funds? It looks more like a reorg. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can read up on it. It fundamentally changed how the NRA approached gun related politics. Let’s assume that the leaders of the NRA did misuse funds. In ten years will we see the NRA still fighting against new firearms restrictions? Will we see the NRA's political clout seriously decline because of this investigation? If yes, then we have a case for inclusion at that time. If no then this didn’t have the sort of long term impact that should make it to the lead of an organization that is almost one and a half centuries old. Springee (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read up on it before I posted. No need to repeat your argument about how old the organization is. I heard you the first two times. - MrX 🖋 15:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you failed to show that you considered it. Trying to put this in the lead looks POINTy. Not so much a summary of the organization but an attempt to make sure the reader understand the organization is fundamentally bad. Springee (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another opinion article that questions the merits of the "shut them down" objective of James's actions. It's from Bloomberg, hardly a NRA ally. [[15]] We have op'eds on the left and right who are concerned about the stated objective of shutting down the NRA with this lawsuit. Springee (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the paragraph on the NYSAG's lawsuit should clarify that the basis for the NYSAG's jurisdiction to seek dissolution of the NRA is that the NRA's founding charter was granted by NYS.[1] [2] This is a rarely known fact that speaks directly to the authority to dissolve an ostensibly national organization. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree — it's clearly stated in the source, and reflected in prior footnotes #1 and #6. Lindenfall (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "NRA".
  2. ^ "NYT".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&oldid=975283447"