Talk:National Rifle Association

Endorsements

Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following...

"In 2011, the organization declined an offer to discuss gun control with U.S. President Barack Obama. However, at the same time, LaPierre said that "the NRA has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data.""

I removed it once after trying to find a better place for it, but it seems like a POV "I told you so" kind of comment to me. Someone has returned it. What relevance does this have in this section?

IP(s) Edit warring 12 times the same edit

I think that IP's 132.194...and 74.135....are wp:duck the same person. They have put in the same edit 12 times in the last few days. I don't even see their point.....they seem to be trying to delete certain activities and goals. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the two newest IPs, and yes they are both from the same area of Colorado. This user has already earned one block for violating 3RR on an older IP, and then another block for evading the first block. ROG5728 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be home and school. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to correct a clear bias that is present on this article. Gun owners and proponents of gun violence have a monopoly on the content of this article and many others concerning guns and violence on Wikipedia. I am living a breathing proof that not everyone in Colorado like gun violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• "proponents of gun violence"? No, that doesn't sound biased at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not biased. It is fact. Saying that the NRA is a proponent of "safety" is bias. Guns are inherently dangerous. That's like saying "nuke safety" or "machete safety". The safest gun is a broken gun. If you are in favor of Guns, you are by extension in favor and complicit in the violence committed using guns. Guns are tools used for impaling something or someone with a bullet. Form follows function.

"Gun owners and proponents of gun violence" I'm neither, & I'm offended. I happen to think gun banners are wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Gun violence is offensive. Do you know how many people were shot today?

♠"Guns are inherently dangerous" Guns are inherently paperweights. Show me one case, just one, where a gun climbed down off a wall, ran out in the street, & shot somebody by itself. And, considering the number of guns in the U.S., the better question is, if you're right, why the country hasn't been depopulated yet. How many people didn't get shot by legal guns today? How many robberies were stopped, or prevented? How many muggings? How many houses didn't get broken into because there was a gun in the house, & the crook didn't want to risk getting shot?

♠"Gun violence is offensive." Yes, it is. How many people got shot today because criminals have guns, & law-abiding citizens don't? How many got shot today because the government has jacked up the price of cocaine so high it's worth killing to add territory? How many got shot today because the government made marijuana illegal, when making it legal could wipe out the demand for cocaine?

♠How is any of that the responsibility of the NRA? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Call me the next time someone shoots up a school or movie theater with a paperweight or with marijuana. The NRA promotes gun ownership, its that simple. How many people were shot today with guns for any reason? and How many people would have been shot today with guns if there weren't any guns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty scary question, "How many people would have been shot today with guns if there weren't any guns?" Quite simply, the crazy ones find another way to do what they intend to do. Timothy McVeigh is a good example. Then again you probably blame the Oklahoma City bombing on the NRA as well... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia NPOV policy, not politics. This is not a forum.

♠Yeah, it's always the fault of the guns. How many robberies were prevented by legally-owned guns yesterday? How many muggings? How many murders?

♠How many murders were committed with knives yesterday? How many assaults? Maybe we need knife control.

♠How many people died in car wrecks? How many robberies & other crimes were committed where cars were used to escape? Lets sue the car companies for complicity.

♠How many people died from smoking cigarettes yesterday? So why are cigarettes legal? They have two functions, & two only: deliver an addictive substance, & kill you, when used as intended. They have no redeeming social benefits. Yet guns are subject to restriction & ban, & cigarettes are for sale to teenagers.

♠The gun-ban zealots will never admit the hypocrisy of their position. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing politics. The NRA has nothing to do with bombs, knives or drugs.

OK, OK, Trek and I are off our soapboxes... ;) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you now address the NPOV status of this page and no longer attempt to spew politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Right after you do, which, by your responses so far, will be never. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues. My attempts to fix this article have been impeded by pro-gun activists. Advertisements are clearly against Wikipedia policy. This is not the place for pro-gun activism. I am going to make changes to the article which bring it in line with NPOV. I am not the one spewing pro-gun rhetoric, I simply want to bring the article in line with NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.218.228 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

since the article is using pending changes, you in fact will not be making changes to the article at all, unless you either register and stop your sockpuppetry, or build consensus for the changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have put my IP address out there for all to see. I refuse to hide behind a fake name. I have made no attempt to hide my IP address and am only trying to bring this article in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I will continue to make changes as long as my existence is ignored by those of you hiding behind fake names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.219.117 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like semi-protected didn't work. I just rv'd much the same change as before. Looks like IP 132 doesn't believe the NRA promotes safety (tho I recall Bill Jordan being pretty fanatic about it, & I'm pretty sure he was an NRA member). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I misspoke, we have pending changes on, not semi protected.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Safety" is a weasel word. "Gun proficiency training" is far more accurate and neutral.

Factually incorrect. "Safety" is the world used by virtually every jurisdiction which mandate "safety classes" and include the NRA classes as fulfilling the "safety education" requirements. Indeed the NRA is the main conductor of gun control advocates' pushed requirements for "Safety classes."108.48.225.194 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of specific changes

• non-profit -> non-profit-lobbying : Certainly they do lobbying, but they also do a lot of other activities, which are well known and sourced by many neutral reliable sources. If we want to add "and lobbying group" to the first sentence , I think that is justifiable, but in should be AND lobbying, not exclusively lobbying.
• They have MANY safety programs, again backed by indy rs. No way that gets removed.
• tenet->belief. Synonyms, but per WP:CLAIM tenet is more neutral. We are not stating anything about a fact of civil right or not

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

♠I can live with lobbying. Whatever else they are, NRA is a lobby (advocacy) group. Maybe "advocacy" is more neutral? "Gun rights advocacy group"?

♠Safety? Agreed. That's been a central theme for decades.

♠Tenet? That seems more an organization term; belief implies a person IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (PS. Wasn't trying to bust you over "protected"... :D )

Any overall characterization as lobbying is inaccurate. It's like one out of 10 major categories of things that they are/do. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is 1/10 yes, but that 1/10 is very notable. Do you object to adding "and lobbying organization" in the lede? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I'm assuming that you're talking about adding it to the sentence that lists some of the other functions, and listing it as another of those functions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See this is what I wanted! There is no consensus as to what the material on this article should say.

♠The NRA is widely known for its lobbying activities, it should be mentioned, at least, in the first sentence. EX: "The NRA is a non-profit organization, widely known for it lobbying activities."

♠The word "safety" is a weasel word. It accurately describes the activities of the NRA, only in the opinion those who agree with those activities. Wording like "gun proficiency" is less weasely. Some do not believe that such programs promote "safety", but instead promote knowledge of how to use a gun "properly".

The word "advocacy" does not accurately describe their activities though. Lobbying is not good or bad inherently. Greenpeace is just as much a "lobbying group" as the NRA is.

They do gun proficiency, yes. They also do things explicitly that are safety oriented. (Eddie eagle, storage recommendations, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Substituting "proficiency" for "safety" is POV, besides. It's not like NRA's sole objective is creating people better able to shoot up schools, contrary to what the gun banners might think--or try to persuade everybody else. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Substituting "safety" with "proficiency" is POV. Safety is a weasel word. The NRA want people to use guns properly. They do not want to end gun violence. I have never said that the NRA want people to shoot up schools, all I am saying is that they're "safety" programs are intended to teach people how to properly use guns, not to end or prevent gun violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.220.220 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper use of firearm includes handling it safely, why do you not understand this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

gun "safety" is an oxymoron. and an opinion. The NRA is teaching proficiency and does not care about eradicating gun violence. That is a fact and should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.220.220 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Take your views on gun confiscation somewhere else. And quit trying to change the article to reflect only your POV. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I never once suggested "gun confiscation", you are the one who brought it up. I was discussing the status of the word "safety" and whether its inclusion in the article is NPOV or not. My intent is for this article to accurately portray the NRA in an objective and neutral fashion, I have never talked about wanting to get gun control law passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of jurisdictions requiring gun "safety" classes, and NRA classes are listed as "safety classes", by those jurisdictions. Just looking at Democrat dominated high gun control states and jurisdictions, California requires and accepts and defines NRA classes as "safety classes." So too does NY State, Washington DC, and every example I can find. In terms of lobbying vs advocacy, in the US the NRA would have its 501(c)4 non for profit status withdrawn by the IRS and run afoul of the FEC if it was doing any substantial lobbying. "Issues advocacy" and "issues education" are used, both colloquially, and legally, to describe the portion of what the NRA does that is aimed at public policy. There is a separate non 501c4 organization affiliated with the NRA that does lobbying. The NRA was audited by the IRS under Clinton, and found NOT to be doing any substantial (IRS definition of "substantial" is 10 to 15% of funds or resources directed at legislation) lobbying. Lobbying is quite literally and legally an in substantial amount of its efforts.108.48.225.194 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Header

The {controversial} heading should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.219.117 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

Or do you mean a template warning? Please sign your posts. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

...and why? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced is the word

I was doing some housekeeping on the Gun politics in the U.S. article, which brought me here, which brought me to this discussion, started and shut-down rapidly six months ago. The IP user above tried to add some criticism to the lead.[1] He or she may have been clumsy about it, but has a valid point. Considering the volume of criticism the NRA gets, very little of it is shared with our readers. Do we need to slap it around? No. Do we need to add some WP:BALANCE, giving it appropriate WP:WEIGHT? Yes. The piddling Criticism section is disproportionate in size to the size of the whole article. And the only way we could bury it deeper would be to put it after the little "Notable members" section that currently follows it - and which is the LAST section in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the mass tagging of this article but my revert was quickly reverted before I could post here. Perhaps one tag at the beginning of the article would suffice if we have consensus for it. Otherwise, I will revert one more time.--Asher196 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "mass tagging." I tagged four sections that need work: three in the article, plus the lead. We can remove the tags as we balance the sections, saving the lead for last. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with it, if you're ok with adding "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to all the anti gun organizations.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. You should know me better than that. That's not my point at all. If YOU want to add that to all the pro-gun and/or pro-control organizations' articles, good luck. However, it's clear from the recent history of this article (say the past 12 months) that anyone trying to add some criticism gets shown the door fast. Not naming anyone in particular, but I see that some editors who are now topic-banned from gun control articles for pushing extreme pro-gun items were involved in some of those discussions of the past year.

However, rather than dwell on our differences, how can we introduce some criticism to the sections that need it. Are existing article sources sufficient? Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll throw a source at you, I know the author and some folks have demonized him for speaking against the NRA and the organization considers him persona non grata, but I found him to be pretty neutral and more importantly, honest.

• Feldman, Richard (12 May 2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13099-5.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources

OK, Mike. I'll start the list with yours. Then I'll comb the article's current sources. Let's brainstorm, and we can choose later.

• Feldman, Richard (12 May 2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13099-5.

This one does an excellent of describing the NRA's organizational structure in an easy-to-understand way:

• Hickey, Walter (December 18, 2012). "How The NRA Became The Most Powerful Special Interest In Washington". Business Insider.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources already in the Lobbying section (now Contemporary history section; see separate discussion below - contains Feldman source, too):

• Jill Lepore (April 23, 2012). "Battleground America: One nation, under the gun". The New Yorker. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Shaiko, Ronald G.; Wallace, Marc A. (1998). "Going Hunting Where the Ducks Are: The National Rifle Association and the Grass Roots". In Bruce, John M.; Wilcox, Clyde (eds.). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. OCLC 833118449. Retrieved April 8, 2014. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Neal Knox (2009). Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War. MacFarlane Press. pp. 299–300.
• Achenbach, Joel; Higham, Scott; Horwitz, Sari (January 12, 2013). "How NRA's true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby". Washington Post.
• Utter, Glenn H. (2000). Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. pp 99-100, 137-8, 161-3, 166-7, 186, 219-220
• Neal Knox (2009). Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War. pp. 314–20.
• Spitzer, Robert J. (1998). The Politics of Gun Control. p 88 (I have latest ed. from 2012)
• Raymon, Emilie (2006). From My Cold, Dead Hands: Charlton Heston and American Politics (biography). University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-2408-7. pp 262-68, quote p. 265

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Lobbying section

Discuss balancing/weighting material, including criticism, in the Lobbying section. Lightbreather (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gads. I thought this section would be a piece of cake, but upon further thought, not so. What is titled "Lobbying" is really more about Cincinnati Revolution. That is to say, about the big power shift and the shift in leadership focus from sport and safety to politics. Therefore, I propose starting with the Leadership section, which is near the bottom of the article, and working our way up till we get back to "Lobbying." That will give us all time to consider what that section is really about, or what we think it should be about. Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I made some edits today that solved two problems. I renamed the "Lobbying" section to "Contemporary history."([2] scroll down) At the same time, I removed the unbalanced tag that was on that section.[3] This solved the problem explained in my "Gads" post yesterday, and it solved the problem of some editors resisting how many section tags are currently in the article; there were three, now there are only two - except for the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Political advocacy section

Discuss balancing/weighting material, including adding due, balancing criticism, in the Political advocacy section. Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: the Political advocacy section in the overall WP:STRUCTURE of this article: it is WP:DUE higher placement. One-hundred years ago, the NRA was primarily about safety and sporting programs, but that all changed during the Cincinnati Revolution. Most WP:V, WP:RS material now is about its influence on politics and gun laws. Plus, it lists protecting and defending the 2nd Amendment as its primary purpose/objective in its bylaws. And that is why I made this [4] edit - regardless of what kind of criticism we add or do not add to the section. Lightbreather (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the 2nd main section of the article. To place it any higher would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. I'm removing the tag for this reason. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I am not suggesting placing it higher. It was 3rd - after "Safety and sporting programs," but being 2nd now is better. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Leadership section

Discuss balancing/weighting material, including criticism, in the Leadership section. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest pulling the Leadership and Notable members sections together, possibly under a new unifying header, or under Political advocacy or Organizational structure and finances. What do y'all think? Lightbreather (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - You're trying to fix a problem that did not exist until you started editing the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Lead section

I suggest first something that doesn't have to do with criticism of the organization, but that will improve the readability of the lead. Per WP:MOSINTRO, remove the over-specific descriptions and difficult to understand IRS terminology and put those details in the Lobbying Organizational structure section. Specifically, I'm talking about the lead's second paragraph, which reads:

The NRA is designated by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) with four 501(c)(3) charitable subsidiaries and a Section 527 lobbying group segregated fund: The NRA Political Victory Fund. The NRA controls through its board of trustees the following 501(c)(3) organizations: NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, NRA Foundation Inc., NRA Special Contribution Fund (dba NRA Whittington Center), and NRA Freedom Action Foundation. The NRA is also the parent organization of affiliated groups such as the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA).

That is NOT "accessible" (again, per WP:MOSINTRO). Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should probably stay open until after the Lobbying Contemporary history, Political advocacy, and Leadership sections and properly weighted and balanced with due criticism per WP:V WP:RS. Lightbreather (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• The infobox had a source for James Porter being the NRA's president that wasn't the most NPOV choice (very critical), so I removed it[5] after putting it in the Further reading section[6] for now as it is appropriate for the Leadership section. The other source for Porter being the president is a link to an NRA article that doesn't work. I will try to find an archived copy, but if I don't I'll probably remove that, too, as this piece of factual information is not likely to be challenged. Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Have been working on sources mostly today. This statement:

The group has a nearly century long record of influencing as well as lobbying for or against proposed firearm legislation on behalf of its members, and calls itself America's longest-standing civil rights organization.

Has this source attached: "NRA History". nra.org. National Rifle Association.

I am removing the the second part ("and calls itself...") as two other U.S. orgs also make this claim. Rather than get into that debate in the lead, I've given the basics in the Political activity section. As for the first part of the statement, perhaps the source given once supported it, but it doesn't now - nor can I find an archived copy that does. I am going to change the sentence to give roughly the same goes-back-a-long-time info based on what the current sources do say. Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

References - and date format

While I'm working on the Balance/weight discussions related edits, I will be improving many of the source citations using WP:CS1. I usually enter dates in "month dd, yyyy" format, but it appears this article used first and/or uses mainly "yyyy-mm-dd" format - so I will use that, unless someone objects. It really doesn't matter to me - only that it be consistent. Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in this article about?

Just so they doesn't get overlooked any longer...

1. I can find nothing in this article about the NRA's political activities at the state and local levels of government. There should be at least a good paragraph about this.
2. Also, there is nothing about its famous "report cards" on elected officials. There should be something about that somewhere, too. Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-profit infobox?

Maybe we should be using the "non-profit" infobox in the article instead of the "organization" infobox? Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the answer to that was "yes," since another editor did swap out the old with the new.[7] Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

Hurricane Katrine should be corrected to Katrina. 68.88.232.108 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Good catch.  NQ  talk 00:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity members

I removed a paragraph and another editor restored it. [8] The removed material is solely names of celebrity members. I look at this as trivia, little more than name-dropping. I'm restoring ones who are board members, with a proper source. Any other opinions on the others who aren't in leadership? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from Heston and Selleck, I was unaware of the other celebrity Board Members, so thank you for this change and improvement. I originally added the celebrity members because I found numerous articles that cited their membership whether it was for positive or negative attention by the press. But having this new connection makes far more sense in the context of the article. Again, thank you, nice addition. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this section, Niteshift36. I made an edit to add the year and website to the citations, and corrected the publisher. Meetthenra.org is not published by the NRA, but by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence - which is affiliated with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Although I'm sure some would object to adding this material to the article, it is in keeping with my stated objective of 28 May 2014.[9][10] Now that we have some sources in the article to provide a little balance in the form of criticism, would you care to help me add the criticism? It needs to be added to the sections and/or subsections of Contemporary history, Political activity, and Organizational structure and finances. There is an existing Criticism section, but I'm torn on continuing to present criticism separately. There are pros and cons to using that kind of format.

I will state again, for the record, as I did on May 28, we don't need to paint the organization or its leaders as villains, but considering how much negative press they get, it is important that more of that is reflected in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• My error in the publisher. Is the group website unreliable? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• No problem. It's reliable, but WP:BIASED. Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I won't dispute the bias. But what we're using them to source, board membership, isn't contentious. My feeling won't be hurt if it gets removed. Just trying to make it relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, I'm not suggesting the source be removed. I'm suggesting that at least some criticism needs to be introduced into the article. The NRA and its leaders receive criticism pretty regularly, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a separate discussion, but on he surface National_Rifle_Association#Criticism seems to cover it adequately to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion 3X now of info from OpenSecrets via Sunlight Foundation and other sources

Scalhotrod keeps deleting information cited to OpenSecrets.org: When I added it, I gave one source: the Sunlight Foundation. First he edited it[11] as part of a larger edit (scroll down to paragraph that begins "In 2012, 88 percent...") Then he deleted it[12] with the edit summary "This needs to be supported by a far more WP:RS than a blog that is NOT using statistics from an editorial source such as OpenSecrets.org" When I added it back, I added more sources. He deleted it again[13] as part of a larger edit with the edit summary (partial) "... removing material that is based on editorial content by a non-WP:RS, OpenSecrets.org" I asked him on his talk page to restore the paragraph or start a discussion here, or at WP:RSN. He deleted that[14] with the edit summary "Cleanup." Since he declined to restore or discuss it, I restored it, which he has deleted now for the third time[15] in five days, giving a link an RSN from 2011 about Koch Industries and the Sunlight Foundation.

I have to run some errands, but I wanted to start this first to see if anyone here has anything to say about this. Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion multiple times of Senate confirmation info

Also, Scalhotrod keeps removing this info about the NRA's influence on Senate confirmations. Most recent deletion here:[16] Lightbreather (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)