Talk:National Rifle Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Russian spying[edit]

New info came out yesterday and is likely to keep coming out. Reverting additions of new info [1] citing concensus is not appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The new information does not pertain to the NRA. It may be relevant to the Russian 2016 election article but it adds nothing new here. Springee (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Not relevant to this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Soibangla:, your edit had been challenged and currently we don't have consensus for inclusion. Please justify the additional material. What you added is not about the NRA. This material was extensively discussed a few months back. Springee (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You challenged it because you assert it is not about the NRA. As I explained in the edit summary, the WSJ confirms it is about the NRA, and I provided the source to show it. soibangla (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The additional material you added is not about the NRA. The source may mention the NRA but what you added doesn't. Springee (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It plainly is about the NRA. The NRA is a central party to this entire matter, as extensive reporting over many months has clearly shown, and this particular edit is also about the NRA, as the WSJ source clearly indicates. soibangla (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The WSJ article was from months back. We already discussed and covered that. Please see the archives for the consensus discussion. The material you added today was not about the NRA. It had no new information regarding the NRA and this news. Springee (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You continue to falsely insist "The material you added today was not about the NRA." In fact it plainly is, and it is entirely relevant to the paragraph to which it was added.soibangla (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
What does the material you added have to do with the NRA. That she was trying to cultivate connections via the NRA was already covered. What new NRA related information did you add? Springee (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to further clarify my point here. The NRA is involved in that Butina saw the NRA as a gateway to contact GOP leaders. To that extent the material is clearly NRA related. However, the material you added wasn't about additional NRA actions/involvement etc. It didn't reveal anything new about the NRA's passive or active involvement. I presume this is why MelanieN agreed that it wasn't relevant to this article. The new content was more about what Butina did with a connection. So the additional information was not about the NRA. It didn't say, "the NRA offered Butina names and numbers" or "the NRA agreed to funnel money from Butina to X". You may disagree but and I'm sure we can argue about where the line of relevant lies but please don't act like I'm the only editor who felt this way. Of course we could ping the editors who were involved in the previous discussions if we want more opinions. Since Mudwater has joined via an edit I'm going to assume that we are now at 3:2 in favor of the new material and leave it at that. Please understand that WP:CONSENSUS applies here. If you add content and it is removed then you must have consensus for restoration. At the time you restored the material there was no new consensus as it was 2 editors against and two editors for the new content. That it a pretty clear no-consensus which means policy says revert to last stable version. Absent some reason to come back I'm done with this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is clearly about the NRA (unnamed gun rights org) and it is cited. The NRA must be so proud of your Wikipedia based advocacy efforts Springee. Do they give you free membership at least for your efforts ? Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
If you keep making comments like this I will take them to ANI where you will risk bring blocked again. Springee (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
There is ever-increasing reason to believe that you should not be allowed to edit this article. soibangla (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Then you better come up with a good reason otherwise please follow WP:CIVIL when editing. Springee (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I already have provided a good reason, multiple times, and you have ignored it multiple times, and continued to falsely insist it does not relate to the NRA, hence the concern I just expressed. soibangla (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Topic banning Springee has been contemplated. Might be time to look at it again. Romoving his friend 72bikers has made this talkpage much better. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── No, you haven't. The material you added isn't new. It was discussed when we reached a consensus about the content of this section. What you added is more detail about the connections she was trying to cultivate, not additional information about the NRA's involvement. So no, you aren't adding new information about the NRA. Your edits may a apply to other articles but they run counter to the previous consensus here. Springee (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Show me where a consensus was reached that the specific content I added should be excluded. Considering that you have repeatedly, falsely insisted that the edit has nothing to do with the NRA, I am not inclined to believe your assertion of previous consensus. soibangla (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed the NRA is central to this as evidenced by the sentence that starts "Most notably, Butina’s Russian gun rights group “Right to Bear Arms” hosted a delagation of former NRA presidents, board members and major donors in Moscow in 2015,.... We should be selective about how we summarize the material so as not to burden readers with extraneous detail. - MrX 🖋 23:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Springee your plainly false statements are getting out of hand here. Please stop or we will need to make you stop. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Kindly discontinue your threats and hyperbole. See WP:CIVIL -- Frotz(talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

In twi minds, whilst it does not it is ot about the NRA background about the activities (and more importantly the fiddlings that they were Russian agents) may be pertinent.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe when it was previously discussed the feeling was to include sufficient information here but primarily link to the primary article on the subject. Springee (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the fact of proven links is pertinent.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian donors[edit]

@MrX:, given this is describing an event that happened almost a year ago, should we use future tense for the part about the letter going to the Federal Election Commission? Can we state "was" or "stated it would be". It just seems odd to speak of what is likely a past event in future tense. I'm not sure why Newsweek is a better source the NPR but I see no reason not to leave both in. I will restore that this letter was in response to a sentator's request. This is politics and that a democratic senator is requesting the information is worth including. After all, the NPR article makes it clear the NRA was replying to Sen. Ron Wyden. That also explains why his aid was stating the letter would be submitted to the FEC. Springee (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did. You replaced the current source, with a much older source. I guess now I know to check the publication dates on the source you cite. Please do not remove the current source, for obvious reasons.- MrX 🖋 14:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@MrX:, What? I hope you just missed something and don't actually think I'm trying to pull a fast one. I'm not and assume you just missed something after a quick read. The Newsweek and NPR articles have the same publication date, April 11, 2018. Also, the NPR article makes it clear the NRA was responding to the senator, not just posting a letter out of the blue ("Wyden has been quering the NRA about..."). Springee (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was mistaken about the publication dates. Newsweek says that the letter was addressed to Congress. NPR doesn't contradict that as far as I can see.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I had to check my grammar. Changed "will be" to "would be". I added Wyden back to the top of the paragraph since the NPR article starts with Wyden's inquiry. This wasn't just an open letter submitted to Congress but a response to questions from a Senator. Springee (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The letter was addressed to Congress and sent to Wyden, right?- MrX 🖋 14:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The letter was addressed to, "The Honorable Ron Wyden, Committee on Finance, United States Senate, [address]" followed by "Dear Senator Wyden". NPR also said "The NRA said in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden..." I would like to make sure we are both discussing the same thing. I would like to restore my version of the text but I want your input before I make any additional changes. Springee (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The NPR article opens with "The National Rifle Association has accepted contributions from about 23 Russians, or Americans living in Russia, since 2015, the gun rights group acknowledged to Congress." This is clearly part of ongoing correspondence between the NRA and the Finance Committee, and it may make sense to start the sentence with "In a response to a previous letter from X asking Y..." for context. Perhaps other sources will help clarify the situation: Is this a response to questions asked by Wyden personally, or was he acting as a spokesperson for the Committee? –dlthewave 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I would assume the questions and responses would be in an official capacity (the Committee on Finance presumably). MrX's text edits said the letter was addressed to Congress (Newsweek said the same). NPR isn't as difinative on the point and the text of the letter appears to be addressed to Wyden in his official capacity. Does that count as "to congress"? The NPR text sidesteps this by saying the letter acknowledged to Congress (presumably via a senator on the committee) vs saying the letter was addressed to Congress. Perhaps it would be better if we said to the Committee on Finance via Wyden or your "In a response..." text. The to congress part is less significant in my reading vs making it clear this was a reply to inquiries from the senator (presumably in an official capacity). I agree another strong source would be helpful. Springee (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Mueller investigation into Trump-NRA connections[edit]

The Mueller investigation is interested in the Trump campaign's ties to the NRA. This relates to the Russian involvement with the NRA and will likely require some level of coverage in this article.

- MrX 🖋 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this for discussion here. I just skimmed the articles but is there anything new here? The CNN article just seemed to say what we already knew. Mueller is investigating. If there is new content and it is independently supported by a second source we should consider adding it. Is the new part an independent confirmation that Mueller is asking about the Trump-NRA association? If so I could see adding it to one of the sentences saying Mueller's investigation includes the NRA even with CNN as the only independent source. Regardless, thanks for opening the dialog. I think that will make this go much smoother. Springee (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
What is apparently new is the confirmation that Mueller is interested in the links between the campaign and the NRA, in addition to what we already know about indictments related to Russia using its NRA ties to infiltrate/influence the GOP.- MrX 🖋 23:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
As simple confirmation that Mueller is investigating Trump-NRA I guess we would add it to the opening sentence of the Russia section? Most of the article recaps old news but a statement by someone who was interviewed that Mueller was looking into the Trump-NRA connection is additional evidence that the NRA is being pulled into the 2016 election investigations. Currently the article says Mueller is looking at how the Russians may have used the NRA to influence the 2016 election. The background of the article suggests this is more of the same but the statement from the person interviewed suggests this could also be Mueller questioning Trump-NRA even without a Russian component. That would certainly add to the current scope. Would it make sense to change the section heading from "Russia" to "2016 Election and possible Russian involvement" or such? I would note that this is still a bit problematic because I think the encyclopedic part of this is going to be what is proven in the end. I would suggest that if, in the end nothing becomes of the NRA's part then this material should be trimmed back and linked to the primary articles of the subject. But we aren't there yet. Springee (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Too much, too soon. Put a simple sentence at the end. O3000 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Question is, is this related to Maria Butina? O3000 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, she asked Trump a question about U.S.-Russian relations at a campaign event. That's not to say it's the only way it's related.- MrX 🖋 23:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

NRA and racism[edit]

I just reverted an edit starting: Members of the leadership of the NRA have been made remark that are perceived by many as racially charged or racist as I thought the first source unusable and the remaining source not strong enough for the claim. However, perhaps it is time to revisit this as it comes up from time to time on the talk page. This article: 23 reasons why the NRA is racist is probably also unusable as a cite. But, perhaps it could be used to find usable sources for a general section on the topic. Thoughts? O3000 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

From what I can remember there were two RFCs on the subject. Here and later here the first one failed and second had concensus for some inclusion. If you look though those there are probably some RS listed. I would oppose personally using the Media Matters blog post for content on that subject just from the type of source it is with a, from what I can tell, non-notable author and the list itself is not very good. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I would oppose using the Media Matters source on several counts, not the least of which is that it is extremely subjective, is extremely partisan, and doesn't care much about getting the facts straight. That blog post in particular is a prime example and makes numerous factual errors. -- Frotz(talk) 01:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: Those two RfCs are on a slightly different topic, "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners". A slight variation of the text proposed in the more recent RfC, complete with references, currently appears in the article. –dlthewave 02:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Correct the second RFC concluded to include the info. PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ackerman McQueen[edit]

There isn't one mention of Ackerman McQueen in this article. It's all over the news.[2][3][4] Given they've worked together since the 1980s, I don't think WP:RECENTISM applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently we know there is a lawsuit but little else. What would we say about it that would be relevant in a decade or more? I'm not saying this shouldn't be in the article in the long term but currently it's a bit of noise but we have no idea if it will be significant in the end. I would say RECENTISM applies. Springee (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)