Talk:Wayne LaPierre

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

Second Amendment or Gun rights advocate?[edit]

It seems more accurate to say that La Pierre is a gun rights advocate rather than a Second Amendment advocate. He does support a very specific interpretation of the Second Amendment but is against other interpretations of it. This is different than generally supporting it. --Calan (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I went to this page to post the same sentiment!!The "Second Amendment" terminology is too loaded,inferring that the NRA interpretation of the Amendment is necessarily correct rather than (as I believe) dangerously wrong.--L.E./ (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Historical precedent from both scores of founding documents and, in more contemporary examples, the D.C. vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago cases, entails that the NRA's assertion that it is a pre-existing individual right that is protected, rather than afforded, by the bill of rights, is correct. Which would make the NRA's interpretation a literal one, rather than simply an opinion expressed by a civil rights organization. Z.F. (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The “second amendment” terminology is also quite cryptic for non-US readers. What's the problem with “gun rights advocate” ? It seems accurate to me, whatever your opinion on the second amendment. GL (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 

It really seems that his position is one of advocating gun rights rather than broadly advocating the Second Amendment, since the latter is a matter of interpretation which may or may not favor the right of certain people to possess certain types of guns. This interview- indicates his position, which is clearly one of advocating gun rights. I would think it should be mentioned first that he is a gun rights advocate, then link it with how such advocacy relates to the Second Amendment. That would seem to cover his position, plus obliquely connecting the two dimensions for readers to investigate if they wish. (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

advocate of... change and "best known for"..[edit]

Let the edit wars commence. For the record I support gun rights a point. I've also served the US taxpayers and defended the US Constitution for twelve years now. Mr. LaPierre is very well known for his conspiracy theories regarding Clinton/Obama and any liberal President, which is not reflected in this article. I present the motion that this article should reflect such, esp. the recent stuff about Obama taking confiscating guns as soon as he's re-elected. All in favour say "Aye." Pär Larsson (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. We don't put that kind of slanted tripe in biography articles at Wikipedia. Obama's anti-gun legislative record in Illinois is common knowledge, not "conspiracy theory." ROG5728 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I for one would welcome a lot more details about what Wayne LaPierre has said - it's certainly my observation, based on email texts I've seen, and the on-hold message I heard when I called the NRA office the other day, that LaPierre wants gun owners to believe that Obama intends to confiscate guns, and it's not a subtle message at all. I don't need to look up Obama's record - I want more information about LaPierre here. Maybe we can leave out the "slanted tripe," but someone this controversial should have a fuller background available for the public, and I'd hate to think gun-rights fans were circling the wagons to prevent the full picture being viewed. Gun-control advocates use Wikipedia too.Rousse (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.
Basically, if multiple WP:RSs say something, it must go in the article. If multiple WP:RSs say it, it's not libel, because their fact-checkers lawyers have cleared it. If other WP:RSs disagree, they go in the article too.
If you follow those rules, you can add anything you want to a WP article. --Nbauman (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
You have a severe misunderstanding of WP. Nothing "Must" go in an article. If several RS repeat libel it does not suddenly make it not libel. Arzel (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's what NPOV says: "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." (Emphasis added.) Do you agree with that? --Nbauman (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
If you spend more than ten minutes digging on this topic, you'll find first and foremost that he dove head-first into the "Birther" crowd. LaPierre is on video and audio on this topic. IIRC, Right Wing Watch and Media Matters have AV archives of him on this topic. (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2012[edit]

Please add: Mr. LaPierre received a medical deferment for the Vietnam War draft and has never served in the military. Source:; Lawrence O'Donnell Show, MSNBC, December 21, 2012. Lawdini (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence O'Donnell is a hyper-partisan polemic, and is not a reliable source for this. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought that the description of "hyper-partisan polemic" could almost apply to LaPierre himself. He is a very public political person. It's normal for real politicians to have their military service (or lack of it) scrutinised. Especially given his primary raison d'etre, the same could logically apply to LaPierre. Let's not dismiss the information by simply dismissing another person. Are there better sources? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I would ask what is the relevance? Arzel (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I just told you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That he recieved a medical deferment for Vietman? Has he publically made any statements related to Vietman? He is not a politician. It is clear why O'Donnell is bringing it up, because O'Donnell's raison d'etre is to try and make anyone he doesn't like look like a hypocrite as much as possible. I don't think that is a valid reason for inclusion here regardless of how it is sourced. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You have completely ignored, misread, or misunderstood what I said. Please have another read of my WHOLE post. (Except maybe the first sentence which was a maybe poor attempt at humour.) If a single part of it confuses you, please ask me to clarify. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
About five years ago, or just over, a doctor at the MEPS at the time came out stating that the reason was that he had a Schizophrenia diagnosis. I'll have to dig, or someone interested can, the news came out shortly after Sandy Hook. The Doctor may have broken a law by speaking on it though. (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please establish consensus on this change. It seems like the link is contested and the change is disputed. Vacationnine 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


I'm surprised there is no criticism in this story, even the response to his Sandy Hook speech.

It got a huge response from WP:RSs, so Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT require it to be in the article.

Here's a nice summary from The Guardian which includes the responses of many WP:RSs. Some of the strongest statements are in the New York Daily News --Nbauman (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so current events are not what WP is about. Furthermore, LaPierre was speaking as a representative of the NRA, such criticism would belong there if anywhere. Additionally, opinion are like...well you know what. Everyone has them, but it does not make them notable, especially columns like the NYDN clear opinion article. We should work on making a better encyclopedia, not trying to trash every living person possible. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding criticism to BLP articles is never a wise move. It's impossible to draw a clear line for where to stop. The article should describe the subject, listing what he has done (relevant to his notability) and what he has said. His opponents' comments belong in their articles, or the articles on the matters of which they speak. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding criticism to BLP articles is required by WP:NPOV: "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." (Emphasis added.)
Show me the text of WP:BLP that says it's never a wise move to include criticism that is well-sourced to WP:RSs and meets WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Show me that you are no longer beating your wife. NPOV is a fundamental principle, however there is no requirement that you include random criticism into an article to meet NPOV. I am not sure how you came to this conclusion. Arzel (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I came to this conclusion from reading WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (Emphasis added.) I do not want to include "random criticism", I want to include views that have been published in reliable sources, in proportion to their publication.
I've asked you to justify your removal of criticism from this article, and you haven't been able to do it. I think you're engaging in WP:Tendentious editing. I think the record is clear, and anyone reviewing this discussion in a dispute resolution process will be able to see that. --Nbauman (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering I didn't remove any critcism from the article you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Apparently you like to just throw around accusations like Tendentious editing without even reviewing the article history because I disagree with your warped understanding of NPOV. Arzel (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

WLP's "jack-booted government thugs" letter?[edit]

Among the many ways in which this article might be improved:

At the statement "In the wake of the the Oklahoma City bombing, LaPierre wrote a fundraising letter describing federal agents as 'jack-booted government thugs' " the article might as well provide a link to the said letter—for instance a link that provides the whole text of the letter—or at least to further information about the letter. Leigh Oats (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Leigh, some of us are very old and we actually lived through these times. This is a very midunderstood statement and it's use contentious in the wiki for a variety of reasons - but primarily because it is quoted so grossly out of the context of the situation. As I recall, this term didn't come come from Lapierre originally. It was originally used as an allegory for totalitiarianism since I think the late 70s and early 80s among several circles. Representative Dingell is quoted as having used the term. You might want to read Jackboot and we might want to reference that here.

In 1995, National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice-president Wayne LaPierre sparked controversy when he referred to federal agents as "jackbooted government thugs"; the comment caused former U.S. President George H.W. Bush to cancel his lifetime membership in the organization. The resignation of so public a figure as Mr. Bush prompted an open letter from the association to the former president to be published in major newspapers; the letter included a litany of alleged and settled cases of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms abuses and an assertion that LaPierre and the NRA were merely borrowing a well-worn phrase uttered by other public figures in their calls for reform of the agency, among them Representative John Dingell of Michigan.[9]

The reality is that the term had been vernacular for a long time. The Davidian situation in Waco and the Ruby Ridge situation caused significant backlash against the government among certain circles and the Oklahoma City Bombing was seen as retaliation by the terrorist McVeigh against the ATF and other Federal agencies (he wanted to kill children because children died in Waco). So the use of the term caused significant issue with people like President Bush and Clinton who were worried that this type of domestic terrorism would continue especially if the flames were fanned by an organization like the NRA. There is a TON of history here that we are simply glossing over. Waco was an overreach, Oklahoma was an overreaction as was the standing up the Michigan Militias in the 90s but equally, Bush's resignation was a slap in the hand to the NRA to have them straighten up.
So, we have to be careful here when we quote things so egregiously out of context. To a young reader (and some of them are our audience) the context is almost entirely lost. Many people don't even know what a Jackboot is or have even heard of the Waco situation. But ask a surviving Jew from the Holocaust and he'll tell you what a Jackboot is and at the same time, the usage of the term in the 80s and 90s was commonplace in certain circles. The resignation of Bush was as a rebuke to the NRA to not align itself so squarely with parties that could go to far - which it took to heart. It effectively killed the term from the vernacular use-o-sphere. There is more detail but that's broadly the meat of it. Some might remember it differently-Justanonymous (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As more context President Clinton recently made a set of statements to President Obama cautioning him not to overreach on guns:

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said.

“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things,” Clinton said. “I know because I come from this world.”

President Clinton is in part going back to some of the democratic defeats seen after the passing of gun legislation but my sense is that another part of him is going back to those days of Waco and Oklahoma and he's saying that if the President and Congress go too far that they also risk the standing up of a bunch of voluntary militias (that inherently have poor governance) and that somewhere out there is another one or multiple unstable crazy lunatics like McVeigh that we as a country don't want to spin up. (yes these nuts are out there) Once you start talking about guns, crazy things and crazy people come out of the woodwork. So there is a lot of history here and Wikipedians have a very tough job to make sure that what we cite helps build the correct narrative with the correct context. This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
May be, but LaPierre's "Advocating Overthow" recruitment strategy for the NRA seeks to stir up exactly those people, and has, in droves. There is a body count of dead Americans as a result. (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. I would rewrite the opening to: "In 1995, in the aftermath of the standoff at Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege and the refusal of the Clinton Administration to address concerns about militarization of federal law enforcement raised by NRA, ACLU, and a dozen other rights groups, LaPierre wrote a fundraising letter and took out an ad in USA Today describing federal agents as "jack-booted government thugs" who wear "Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.""

The judge advocate and legal adviser for US Army special forces wrote on these issues in detail in less colorful but more legalistic language in the US Army War College Quarterly Parameters. Thomas R. Lujan, "Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army", Parameters US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.

The adoption of military rules of engagement and weaponry in domestic law enforcement is still an issue today and it won't be solved by demonizing its critics. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of criticism[edit]

Criticisms of LaPierre that I added were removed by ROG5728 citing WP:BLP. However, BLP rules clearly state that if contentious material is properly sourced, it is permissable. Since my edit includes numerous reliable third party citations, and it is verifiable that these these people said these things, the edit is not a violation of BLP. Comments about a person do not get to be removed just because they reflect negatively on the person. Adding criticism can help to balance an article -- even a BLP -- and there is plenty of positive stuff about Wayne LaPierre here. If you'd like to discuss this further, please comment below, but please do not remove my properly sourced and cited edits. Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is masses of well sourced criticism of LaPierre available. Once you start adding some of it, will you keep adding it forever? Where does one draw the line? HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48, it is a valid question to which I don't have an answer. Nor does anybody. It has also not prevented thousands of Wikipedia BLPs from containing criticism. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. People who edit articles in good faith acknowledge that NPOV does not mean only saying favorable things about the subject. As ROG5728 says, I would look at policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE for guidance.
I am not married to the exact wording of what I added. However, the Sandy Hook press conference was a national event and quite possibly one of the most high profile appearances in LaPierre's life. It seems to me that if the press conference was important enough to include a summary of LaPierre's proposals, it is important enough to include the response to what LaPierre's had to say. I would be interested to know what criticisms both you and ROG5728 think is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Rather than deleting properly sourced content outright, why not try to come up with something that is acceptable? Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The recent addition is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE, and as such I've removed it. We aren't going to devote a third of this article to talking about criticisms of Wayne LaPierre. Don't be absurd. ROG5728 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it is little more than a bunch of crap throwing ad hominen attacks on LaPierre. Arzel (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Even so, I would think the response to his press conference deserves mention. It received lots of coverage, and was a major event in his career. Just because it's unfavorable, and just because the response might've been harsh, it doesn't mean it's not worth including. Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Because the Sandy Hook press conference was a nationally televised, major event in LaPierre's career, it is worth mentioning criticism that he received. I have reduced the length of the section to accommodate concerns about WP:UNDUE. Because all statements are cited with reliable sources, this should eliminate WP:BLP concerns. Because only a small part of this article is critical of LaPierre, the addition of some limited criticism does not come close to violating WP:NPOV (in fact, I would say that it improves the article's balance). If you have concerns about what I've added, I'd suggest that you make suggestions about how it can be improved, rather than blanking factual, sourced, wholly justifiable content from the article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment. When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasise that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
That's what I led with: "Because the Sandy Hook press conference was a nationally televised, major event in LaPierre's career, it is worth mentioning criticism that he received." The conference was obviously important enough to be nationally televised and mentioned in this article. Do you deny that the response LaPierre's remarks was insignificant? Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't like criticism being added to anybody's article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I could see someone making the argument that the press conference itself is given undue weight in this article and argue for the removal of all mention of the press conference. But if the press conference is worth including in the article, then I see no reason why some criticism can't be included. It was widely and publicly criticized. Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason is that the article is about Wayne LaPierre. It's not about what other people think of Wayne LaPierre. Tell the world what LaPierre says and does, and let every individual reader make up their own mind about him. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it sounds to me more like a personal philosophy than a reflection of WP policy. Under WP:BLP: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." As such, I think criticism is allowable. If anyone here would like make suggestions about how it could be done more responsibly, conservatively, or disinterestedly, other than "never include criticism," I welcome the discussion. Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you see any praise included in the article? No, not a bit, so your additions violate WP:BLP on that basis alone (not to mention WP:NPOV). The addition is also UNDUE because it's all related to one press conference on one event. There was already some criticism of Wayne LaPierre in this article (from a Clinton White House spokesperson, nonetheless) and that's more than enough. There is no need to fill this article with more criticisms of Wayne LaPierre. This article is about the man, it's not about what critics think of him. You're not going to get your way by reverting and adding the content back over and over, either. ROG5728 (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, your repeated removal/blanking of content that is not vandalism is not a sign of acting in WP:Good Faith, and your abrasive tone and insults ("don't be absurd," "you're not going to get your way") contradict the WP:Civility guidelines that you put on your own talk page. Criticism can be included based on Wikipedia policy. Whether you think I'm trying to "get away" with something or if you personally don't like it is irrelevant. If you'd like to help write it or make meaningful contributions, by all means, help. Otherwise, you are not doing this article any service. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Content does not have to be vandalism for us to be justified in removing it. You're the one editing in contradiction to Wikipedia policies (including WP:NPOV) as well as the consensus so far here on the talk page. Trying to devote a third of this article to criticisms of Wayne LaPierre is indeed absurd, as I said, but that was hardly an insult. As for getting your way on this issue, that's correct; you won't get your way by reverting over and over. That's not how Wikipedia works. Discuss your changes on the talk page, and if they aren't accepted, stop adding them back. So far, you haven't made a convincing argument at all for including this material, so you can expect your addition to be removed again. ROG5728 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to accommodate concerns each time and have reduced the size of the content each time. And yet, each time, your response has been to blank the edits and remove the references. There is only one person reverting content here. Regarding your 1/3 comment, the edit that I made never amounted to 1/3 of the article, and it certainly does't now. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Which "policy" says you can include criticism? Don't point us at WP:CRITICISM. That clearly carries the warning "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors... Essays are not Wikipedia policies..." The matter is clearly still open for discussion, and that's what we're trying to do. HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Per my previous comment, on WP:BLP, do a search for "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." I believe with my most recent edit, this meets those guidelines. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Your inclusion was boarderline since you tried to make a correlation link between Murdock and the NY Post ad-hominen attacks linked to the HuffPo. Arzel (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You know your second inclusion, which I overlooked until today, was even worse. Please stop adding your original research to this article. Arzel (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

More of the same[edit]

Per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately. The source recently added by Zeamays (and removed by myself) is a laughably slanted opinion piece that spends 90% of its time talking about how stupid and evil they think Wayne is. Zeamays, take your POV pushing elsewhere. It won't be tolerated in BLP articles. ROG5728 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

LaPierre's error: Notable[edit]

ROG is apparently patrolling ths article to eliminate facts that don't fit his WP:POV. He is improperly reverting references to an error made by LaPierre, the reference to the facts is a transcript. To avoid an acccusation of WP:OR, I added a statement from a newspaper that described the error explicitly. It need not be an unbiased ref, because the error can easily be seen in the transcript. So you can't have it both ways. LaPierre's salary is from a reference on salaries of non-profit execs, reliable and notable. Or do you think it's something of which LaPierre should be ashamed? Not POV, but fact. --Zeamays (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Citing the transcript by itself goes against WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and your other source is a completely slanted opinion piece that spends 90% of its time talking about how stupid and evil the author thinks Wayne is. Most importantly, the content you added is WP:UNDUE anyway. Let's suppose LaPierre did make an error in his speech. So what? It's not even slightly notable. And if you look, you'll notice I didn't take issue with the salary information you added. ROG5728 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, you don't seem to understand how WP:BRD works; please read it. It's up to you to achieve consensus for an addition. Until your addition has consensus, it will be reverted and discussed here. Discuss, don't revert. You haven't achieved support for your changes. ROG5728 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong: The complete facts of LaPierre's error are in the transcript. It is factual in and of itself. The senstors in the transcript pointed out LaPierre's eroror, so there is no WP:SYNTH. It was notable because it showed LaPierre's haa not case for inhibiting universal background checks. I am urging you not to start an edit war, as you have done previously. Yes, I have read . I suggest you haven't learned it's lessions, specifically:

:BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
--Zeamays (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with ROG on this. The Opinion piece is extrememly slanted and not usable for anything within a BLP. Furthermore the presentation of the information by Zeamays is highly POVish. WP is not a place to promote your personal attacks on living people. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I note Arzel's objection, so I will remove the Milbank reference, but not the information, which is fully included in the Transcript I cited. --Zeamays (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The material still isn't notable at all, even if you get rid of the bad source. Wayne LaPierre made an error in his speech? So what? That's not even slightly notable. WP:BLP articles don't work like that. ROG5728 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Your answer is that LaPierre is a public advocate, a professional lobbyist, so if the central point of his testimony to Congress is in error, it is notable. Keep in mind that the Senators called out the error during the testimony, and it is all documented in the Transcript. --Zeamays (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The fact that he is a "public advocate" is a big reason NOT to derail the article by talking about some random error he made in a speech; WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Regardless, the NRA's argument against background checks does not hinge on this point, and the fact that you think it does would seem to indicate you don't have a clear understanding of this subject. ROG5728 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
ROG: Please keep this civil. Your view and my view of the correctness of the NRS's advocacy are unimportant It is important that you grant that there are positions other than your own, and those documented facts deserve to be in the article to keep it NPOV. Your use of the word "derail" is telling. What is important is notability, and LaPierre's error caused US Senators to correct him, which is notable. --Zeamays (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Nothing I said to you was uncivil. Fact is, the material you added to the article is a violation of WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE) and WP:BLP. It's not at all noteworthy, and its inclusion in this BLP article serves only to advance an agenda against the NRA. No one but you thinks the material belongs in the article, so it will be removed again shortly. As stated below, if you continue adding it back and ignoring consensus, you'll likely be blocked. ROG5728 (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus on Mr. LaPierre. Regarding civility, I quote your statement above, " don't have a clear understanding..." No, I just disagree with your POV. That doesn't mean I don't understand, and that's why your comment is uncivil. Please withdraw it. Your other comments are expressions of your personal opinions, and not in line with any Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to air all sides of controversies. Rather, it's your agenda to have a sanitized article, hence your telling use of the word "derail", which demonstrates you have a definite agenda. LaPierre is a controversial public figure, which has important implications about what can and should be included. --Zeamays (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So far, there seem to be four editors that have spoken out against you and none for you. The material you added to the article is a violation of WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE) and WP:BLP. It's not at all noteworthy, and its inclusion in this BLP article serves only to advance an agenda against the NRA. And yes, the fact that you think the NRA's argument against background checks "hinges" on this point in LaPierre's speech indicates to me that you don't have a clear understanding of this subject. That's not an uncivil comment, it's just a polite expression of the truth. You keep talking about "airing all sides of controversies" but I only see you pushing one POV (yours) in all of your edits. ROG5728 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP and POV Pushing[edit]

This article has been degrading over the last month and I'm seeing many of the usual faces here that have degraded other good articles on Wikipedia. If you're an activist (and I think we know who you are now), without a genuine intent on improving the article and instead here for POV pushing please go away, you're making the work of good editors much harder and increasing the workload on genuine good editors and copyeditors who will invariably have to come here and clean up the sad mess you're creating. Wikipedia is not a place for you to conduct your activism, pro or anti gun. This article will be heavily cleaned up in the near future and your POV pushing will be removed summarily . Remember this article is a biography of a living person and violations of WP:BLP must be removed immediately. WP:BRD is a dispute resolution mechanism that all editors must adhere to. If your edit is reverted per WP:BRD by any editor, you are required to discuss and reach consensus on the talk before inserting the rewritten material into the article. If you edit war, you will be blocked.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Just on this one simply because this article (as any article about a living person) is held to a higher standard per WP:BLP. Anyone who edits this article, regardless of their intentions, risks receiving extra scrutiny and the wrath of the WP foundation because it simply can't afford to be caught up in a law suit over libelous material. We've already earned a temporary editing block and rightly so in my opinion.
(Soapboxing begins...) More than half of the NRA activity section is about events that have transpired since the Sandy Hook Shooting. Folks, if you didn't think what he did or said BEFORE that incident was important enough to write about, you shouldn't be doing it now. WP is not a place to be an activist. If you're so fired up that you want to make a difference, then do something REAL. Go join an organization, donate some money, or write a letter to your Representative in D.C., but leave Wikipedia out of it. (Soapboxing rant over...) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
So, have you two finished attacking "I think we know who you are now" yet? I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, that BLP articles require special care, but your mechanism is appalling. What you're doing is making a personal attack on a person or persons you won't name but hope that "everyone" knows who you're talking about, including your target. That's no better than the behaviour you're criticising. Two proposals... 1. If someone is blatantly breaking the rules, take them to the appropriate disciplinary part of Wikipedia. 2. If you won't name an offender (who quite possibly regards himself as completely innocent anyway), just remind everyone of the BLP rules. Don't make this an attack thread in itself. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
If you had witnessed what has been happening for months at the other articles (e.g. National Rifle Association) you might understand. Zeamays has spent the last couple months edit warring and pushing his point of view on NRA-related articles such as this one. Granted, Wikipedia editors are to assume good faith, but not indefinitely. His editing behavior is becoming a real nuisance to those who would like to actually improve Wikipedia articles, and there's nothing "appalling" about pointing that out. ROG5728 (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Rog: You have a definite agenda, see my comment today under the previous heading regarding your telling use of the word "derail". Patrolling articles on related topics keep them sanitized is your agenda. I just want to have both sides of controversies included, but a group of editors has been thwarting that effort. --Zeamays (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
If "patrolling articles to keep them sanitized" is my agenda like you say, then great! That's correct, I don't think we should derail a BLP article by talking about some insignificant error someone made in a speech. That's not how Wikipedia articles work (especially BLP articles). You keep talking about wanting to have "both sides of controversies included" but I only see you including one POV (yours) in all of your edits. ROG5728 (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Rog: All I see you doing (other than your comments here) is deleting factal, notable material. OK, prove it. Add something to an article for a change. You keep using the word "derail", which only makes sense if your vision of Wikipedia is a railroad, a mission to a predetermined destination. But Wikipedia isn't a railroad, sorry. The article is already sanitized, so the only way to make it balanced is to add material for the side of the argument that is not represented. Mr. LaPierre isn't an insignificant figure, but a highly-paid lobbyist for a large and influential organization, and he wasn't making a "speech" but testifying to Congress, so the error is not insignificant. --Zeamays (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
As someone stated earlier, factuality is not the issue here and never has been; the issue is neutrality (WP:BLP) and notability (WP:UNDUE). As for your comments about me making a contribution of my own, all one has to do is take a look at my user page to notice I've probably contributed more to WP:GUNS articles than just about anyone else in the project. Rest assured, I've made my fair share of contributions to Wikipedia. I generally don't edit political articles such as this one, except to sanitize non-NPOV edits like yours. You can argue back and forth about it all you like, but so far your changes don't have any support, so don't expect them to stick. ROG5728 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll address specific individuals. HiLo48, I respect you in immeasurable ways. You truly have a clarity of thought that I admire. With regard to the perceived bashing of Zeamays, this person's actions (edits) speak for themselves. I respectfully submit the following.

I reviewed Zeamays' edit history[2] and discovered that prior to the Sandy Hook incident he had little (seemingly no) interest in firearm related articles. So if an accusation is to be made its that Zeamays has become a "situational activist" here on WP. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, Zeamays is one of many that have been inspired to edit WP because of that horrendous event. This edit has been made at the request of Zeamays and the urging of Admin Moriori. I think this addresses the substantive portion of their concerns. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That said Zeamays has made edits to the following articles starting with the December 15, 2012 edit of:

I won't characterize the edits, I'll let others review them and form their own opinion. The discussions on the associated Talk pages seem equally revealing to me.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The above comments by ROG and Scalhotrod are off-subject, personal and assume bad faith, in violation of WP:AGF:
"Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith."
I request the authors remove their personal attacks. This talk page is to discuss the referenced article, not to engage in analysis of another editor's motives or choice of articles to edit. --Zeamays (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are to assume good faith, but not indefinitely. Over the last couple months you've demonstrated a clear pattern in your editing behavior, so we've pointed that out. No personal attack occurred. If you don't like your editing behavior coming under scrutiny, I suggest you start editing constructively instead of trying to push your point of view on Wikipedia articles. ROG5728 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:AGF is a great behavioral guideline, it was good to re-read the entire article, thank you.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Egregiously Biased[edit]

I won't take a side on this issue of gun control, but I can say that this man- regardless of his political sanity- has become a literal shooting target for proponents of gun control. Activists have, once again, seized control of this article, subjecting it to outrageously one sided criticism. LaPierre's statements are paraphrased in ways to make them appear ridiculous, even if they are. A true testament of a fair individual is one who is able to withstand the viewpoint of both sides. Although Wikipedia may contain a disproportionately small number of 2nd amendment advocates, it is unfair and immoral to slander one man and slant one article. I am sure I will be torn apart for advocating some basic neutrality of decency, and that many will turn a blind eye and claim this article suits Wikipedia's standards. If that is so, it is Wikipedia's readers that lose out, not the pro-gun lobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but an admin protected this article due to the BLP issues and neglected to undo the bad edits (for whatever reason) before locking the article. The lock will wear off in a couple days, then the article will be cleaned up. ROG5728 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
it's a mess. These articles should be blocked for 3 mos right after a storm like we've had. Cleaning it will be hard but we'll get there.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the bias is that the article had been sanitized. It is only fair that notable criticism of a public figure should be included. --Zeamays (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
One more comment, since an editor keeps referring to "BLP issues", he might want to refer to the source: WP:BLP#Public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Zeamays (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, and the incident you're wanting to add is not noteworthy, not relevant, and not well-documented. Actually, it couldn't even be described as an "incident" in the first place. LaPierre may have made an error in a speech. So what? ROG5728 (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? Well, as a very public spokesman for the NRA, it's a very bad look if he presents wrong figures in defence of his organisation's position, whether by mistake or deliberately in an attempt to deceive. (Do you know which of those two possibilities it was?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you know of any public figures who haven't made an error in a speech? It's not notable at all, especially in a BLP article. ROG5728 (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If you know of good, well-documented examples, please feel free to include them in the appropriate article. Before you refer to BLP again, please read the quote I presented above from WP:BLP#Public figures. As for well-documented, LaPierre's notable error is contained in the transcript cited as a reference, so please don't repeat that again. Articles should present both sides of significant arguments, so LaPierre's error should be included. --Zeamays (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ROG - you really aren't very good at discussing things. You asked a question (So what?). I answered it. And then, rather than responding to my answer, which is how a discussion works, you deflected it with another question, in a shallow kind of way common to tabloid media and populist TV talk shows, and not the way we need to work at a serious encyclopaedia. I'm new to this Talk page. So far, I'm not impressed. So, shall we try again? Remember, we're talking about THIS article, not others. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS covers that. LaPierre, a very public person, stuffed up. It simply IS highly notable to the media, obviously, because it got plenty of attention. The immediate question was whether that stuff up was just a simple mistake, and not his true position, or was it truly representative of his level of knowledge and understanding. I don't know the answer. Do you? Obviously, if it's the latter, it matters a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave the personal insults out please. We all struggle with these things called words. Lapierre is a semipublic person because he leads an organization that is at the forefront of an issue. That does not mean that every misquote is added to their biographical entry not does it give us liberty to libel the man here. Type Barak Obama or Joe Biden and you get a very respectful biography of the two gentlemen who are public figures yet we don't find a bunch of POV pushing there. The same should be true of Mr. Lapierre's entry here. That is not the case at the moment, this article is largely trash and as others have noted the vast majority of the POV bias has been added in the last month and a half. It needs to be cleaned up and no, not every misquote is notable. As a clarification, I listened to the full testimony and Mr. Lapierre clarified his statement during the testimony itself so it wasn't a lie, it was a contextual error that wasn't clear at the time he cited it that was clarified as the discussion progressed - so even less notable (a very human problem with words like we all have). We need to clean up this article once the block is lifted very respectful to WP:BLP-Justanonymous (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is the "personal insult"? And where and what are the words where LaPierre clarified/corrected his error? HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
If Just, Rog and Scal can show that LaPierre corrected himself, I agree the reference to an error should be removed. I had a look at the articles on Obama and Biden, and I agree that criticism is minimal, but to me that means that the articles don't contain enough criticism, not that sanitized articles should be the norm. Wikipedia articles should not stint on including factual criticism of public figures to give the reader an honest evaluation. BTW, LaPierre is not a semi-public figure, whatever that means.[1] If anyone in the USA is a public figure, it is he. --Zeamays (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
LaPierre has become a public figure OUTSIDE the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - If the topic of "public figures" is going to be part of the discussion, we should be referencing this public figures (BLP) only versus the WP (non-policy) article that Zeamays mentions.

HiLo, your "answer" to me was a non-answer, and I responded to it by pointing out that there is no such thing as a public figure who hasn't made an error in some speech at some point in time, and it's not notable at all; nor does it befit a BLP article to nitpick a public figure over something like that in the article. Then again, I'm repeating myself now; reading comprehension is your responsibility, not mine. No one referenced "other stuff" as a basis for what to do in this article, they referenced WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. ROG5728 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You have not yet convinced me that it's undue. Try discussing. You know. Answering questions, etc. He said a dumb thing. That's clear. Plenty of evidence. There are claims now that he corrected himself. Fine. Produce the evidence and all will be well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Rog repeatedly cites WP:BLP, but the section of it regarding public figures contradicts him. He does not acknowledge this and just keeps repeating WP:BLP..WP:BLP...WP:BLP.... If we're going to make progress, there needs to be on-topic discussion. --Zeamays (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
HiLo, of course you aren't convinced, because you've already made up your mind that Wayne LaPierre and the rest of us are nutters. A person with that kind of mindset has absolutely no business messing with a BLP article. The purpose of this article is to expound on Wayne LaPierre, as a person, in a neutral fashion, without giving undue weight to little tidbits like this one. Doesn't matter how much either of you dislike the man, we're going to be balanced in his article. ROG5728 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Rog, the personal views of editors are not to be discussed. No editor is unprejudiced. The point is to have NPOV content in the articles. --Zeamays (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The point is, there's no reason to even have a discussion here if you two have made up your minds that the rest of us Wiki editors are "nutters" just because we want to maintain balance in a BLP article. By the way, you two keep bringing up AGF and complaining about perceived personal attacks, but you seem to be the only ones actually throwing out personal attacks against the rest of us "nutters." ROG5728 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
During the Presidential election I worked on keeping garbage out of the articles on the main candidates. There were many attempts to add it. I am proud that my efforts led to accusations from both the Romney and Obama camps that I was pushing a POV for the other side. I can have an opinion (and yes, being non-American it should be no surprise at all that I think the US gun lobby is nuts - almost all non-Americans think that), but keep it away from articles I edit. I haven't pushed for a particular view here, nor have I changed the POV of the article. I have asked questions on the Talk page. So far they are unanswered. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Rog: I request you retract that erroneous accusation. I never said or wrote any such thing, nor is that my opinion. Your comment is entirely unfair disparagement of another editor. --Zeamays (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Zeamays, I was quoting the other editor; and directly quoting another editor is not "disparagement." Stop trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist. If you want to take issue with something, take issue with the editor throwing out personal attacks. ROG5728 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To get back on topic, what are your questions HiLo? Repeat them. ROG5728 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Rog: You wrote, "..if you two have made up your minds..." That was expressly plural. Please address my request and withdraw your comment. --Zeamays (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, your friend was the only one who threw out the personal attack. You just overlooked it. Now if you don't mind, we're trying to get back on topic so we can discuss the article. ROG5728 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, but HiLo is not my "friend", and it is not my place to comment on his personal views. YOU were the one who made disparaging comments here, in this forum, and I'm only going to ask you once more: Withdraw your comment, please. By withdraw I mean delete. --Zeamays (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The only disparaging comment made was the one I referenced earlier from HiLo, where he called the rest of us "nutters." I already corrected myself by pointing out that the comment was made by him, and not you. I'm not going to delete talk page comments without a good reason. Now, if you don't have anything on-topic to contribute to this discussion, please don't post in it. I would like to discuss the content with HiLo; namely, the insertion that violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. ROG5728 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're nutters. So does most of the world. That should not be a secret to you, and it's best if I put my position clearly on the table. I take pride in the fact that despite my opinion I can edit and discuss matters objectively and within Wikipedia's rules. It's time you tried too, or you will simply be reinforcing your global image. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Think what you want, but No Personal Attacks. If you will not discuss the article content in question, please do not comment at all. ROG5728 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, LaPierre's intentional/non-intentional blunder, should be mentioned. Afterall, he's the NRA's Executive Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I seen a worse case of immense bias in a BLP that this one. Nearly the whole thing (including the selection and presentation of content) looks like a hatchet job rather than an article on a person. Even down to the choice the choice of a "mug shot" angled picture on the second one. (camera below where their face is aiming) And that without the material on an error or whatever that people are trying to put in. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ The only reference I could find to "semi-public figure" is in the context of New Jersey law, where, as I understand it, this is a private figure who becomes involved in a court case and as a result is held to the higher standard of proof for libel normally required of public figures. See: George, Helen W. (1986) "New Jersey Creates a New "Semi-Public Figure" in Defamation Actions: Sisler v. Gannett Co., Inc.," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 61: Iss. 1, Article 5. Available at: [1].

They said "Yes" to Wayne's suggestion...[edit]

Newtown board wants more cops in schools

I'm a little stunned by this... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

no not in this article but there is a place for this - we can't balance POV pushing with more POV pushing in the other direction. Are you stunned because you think it's crazy that they would put armed guards after a massacre? Agree, they should've had them there before the shooting.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If it's surprising, then it's notable, anẰd you should consider adding it to this article. I differ with Just on this as a general point, and I want to be consistent. NPOV does not mean that every fact has to be balanced by an opposing fact, like Newton's 3rd law. --Zeamays (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I know Zeamays, we have a slightly different philosophy on the wiki which is fine, I respect you and your philosophy. I just don't think it fits under WP:DUE. We wrote that Wayne called for Guards in schools, then we wrote that some commentators called him crazy for that, then Joe Biden agreed it was a crazy idea (we can add that), then we write that newtown unanimously called for armed guards (we can add that), then a shooting in a school in atlanta was stopped by an armed guard with no loss of life (we can also add that).. All are notable and all verifiable facts that are tangentially relevant but to me all of it is immaterial in describing Mr. Lapierre in an encyclopedic article context. It should be a very short beefy article detailing the substance of the person's very long career with his broad positions. Other disagree which is fine, we'll find the happy medium. If we're going to go the long narrative route, then this and the atlanta shooting incident are notable.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC).
Just, don't beat a dead horse. You know very well that's not what I advocate. See my next edit, which I was writing while you added the above comment. --Zeamays (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well it is rather surprising don't you think, everyone from the President, Vice President, virtually all of msnbc advocacy journalists, and even some commentators on Foxnews have called Mr. Lapierre crazy for advocating having armed guards in school...isn't it surprising then that newtown, the victims of a horrific mass murder, would now unanimously call for armed guards in their school? It's surprising and by that standard notable for inclusion. My gosh - the article is just going to be a gazillion POVs. Entire garbage and utterly unreadable. Wrong approach I say. I'll read your post below. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course it should be put in. This is what the governing body for Sandy Hook school (the school district) decided. It's much more germane than what politicians elsewhere in the country are saying. PS actually it's not surprising.....the tragedy is being used by people elsewhere to further their own agendas, and comments by politicians elsewhere are easily understood in the context of being volleys in that battle. Whereas the folks directly involved want what will directly / actually help protect their kids. Actually, the folks even closer to the parents/kids (one of the PTA's) wanted two police officers in each school, and the board decided to ask for one in the schools (such as Sandy Hook and 3 others) that did not already have one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes but this is a Biography of a Living Person (of their entire life!). How can just pouring advocacy from both sides every time the gun debate flares up in any way make this article better? It doesn't. Wikipedia is not that. It violates WP:BLP, WP:Recentism, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE. That's why the admins locked this page. This should just be a short beefy article about Mr. Lapierre's broad contributions not a gun debate battleground page. but if the consensus is to add anything you want so long as it complies WP:RS, notable, and "surprising", then by all means but let's not block entries, everyone gets to add whatever they want, don't revert anyone. Add the Newtown stuff and Add all the criticism. I'm just here to say that that is not what Wikipedia is.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
North8000, I can't find your entry on the article. It might have been reverted. Feel free to add it, Zeamays is ok with it and I won't stand in your way. It would actually help balance things in a bizzaro superman world kindof way..-Justanonymous (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with all of your comments, with the caveat that "higher standards" should not be unequally applied. Unequally applying higher standards to exclude material is the most common way to POV an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed North8000. Thx much.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"isn't it surprising then that newtown, the victims of a horrific mass murder, would now unanimously call for armed guards" Wow, some people don't know how to read. The Board of Selectmen - which may only be three people - was unanimous, not the freaking town. And commentary on Sandy Hook really doesn't belong in this awful person's Bio here on WP. It belongs in other articles. Huw Powell (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Improvements needed[edit]

The current state of this article is that criticisms of LaPierre's public statements are described thus, "so and so criticized and so and so criticized, etc." The basis for each criticism is unstated. This does not provide the reader with needed information to understand the debate. For an example of how that should work, see the article on Gabrielle Giffords, in which her critics' positions are briefly explained. --Zeamays (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree on this point! As Justanonymous stated, this article needs to be "a very short beefy article detailing the substance of the person's very long career with his broad positions." I also like Zeamays recommendation of the Gabrielle Giffords article as an example of how to do it. Although, I recommend going one step further and use the entire article as a template and not just the criticism section that includes criticism. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Scal, there isn't a criticism section in the Giffords bio. The criticism is intermingled into the discussion of her legislative work at state and Federal levels. --Zeamays (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I still think the suggestion of mirroring that article is a good one.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea.North8000 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, who wants to volunteer their Sandbox space to start the new & improved version? If I have the time over the weekend, I might take a stab at it. If anyone else does, please post a link. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Robocalling in violation of US Law[edit]

It's original research, but this criminal engages in robocalling. I can't add this to the to the article, but this man has called my phone in violation of Federal Laws multiple times. He is a bad man, and a criminal. Huw Powell (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Huw, first off, thank you for making your comment on the Talk page and giving others the opportunity to comment. As for the situation, as offended as you might be by the robocalling its something that is allowed under FTC regulations. The NRA is both a non-profit and a political group so they fit the criteria to make calls to numbers that on the federal do not call list. The next time it happens, just listen to the entire message and then follow the instructions at the end of it to get your number removed. If you request it, according to the same FTC regulations, they have to remove your number from their list. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting point, Scalhotrod. So he's not a criminal, just an offensive intruder. Thanks for the clarification! Listening to the entire message to find out how to get him to leave me alone, of course, carries a cost of my time. And some of these calls go on and on and on and on and I charge $60/hour. I still call him a criminal, despite the legalistic defense that "sort of" passes muster that you present. He intrudes into my life and speaks hate into my ear, and I have to listen to it all to get him to stop? Huw Powell (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
A non-profit that pays an executive to hassle people on the phone almost a million dollars a year is a joke. Huw Powell (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I often wonder what kind of targets such annoying behaviour is aimed at. I can't see it as very effective marketing. Definitely not in this case! HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The alternative is to call their headquarters in Virginia during the week and ask to be removed from their marketing programs. The person will ask you for your name and all of the phone numbers that you want removed. And for the record, call him whatever you like... :) Your 1st Amendment rights allow you to do so, just make sure that it starts with, "I consider him a _____..." That way its an opinion and not libel. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You must be pretty special if Wayne LaPierre (rather than the NRA) is personally handling the robocalling for you. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Washington State I 594 and the NRA[edit]

Where was the NRA support when the I-594 came up for a vote in Washington State this past November election day? I put in a considerable amount of time and money trying to get the word out on the very bad law I-594 vs. I-594 the good law, that was also supported by several thousand Washington State law enforcement officers. You say that the NRA is always there for the membership! I did not see one televised NRA anti I-594 commercial put on by the NRA establishment, letting the people know what was in the hidden pages of the law. You say that the membership dues is not enough money to keep the NRA going, well you can count me out, I will not send you anymore fanatical support until I see the NRA vocal support that will be needed to wake up the voting community.

Distinction of criticism and neutrality and request for inclusion of opposition[edit]

This is not the forum for discussing Wiki policies. I see a lively discussion about lack of criticism of WLP in the article. Some ask, if we include criticisms, where does it stop? Others say, why no criticisms? Forgive me for creating this as a new section but I see the talk thus far disjointed. In the past, I've seen many Wiki articles, specifically on politicians, that had a section called 'Criticism'. Now I can't find any on pages of major politicians, or celebrities (like Brad Pitt). However, organizations (like the UN) have sections with the term 'criticism' in the heading.

We can debate whether WLP is a conspiracy theorist, nutjob, etc, or not. The fact is he is the executive of an organization that aggressively, vehemently, and proactively litigates on behalf of gun rights (the litigation well documented in Wiki, especially in the SCOTUS Heller v DC case aftermath. We can all concede the NRA does this under his leadership and draws from his efforts. Having said that we can all also conclude that he has a very specific agenda. The article has a single section entitled 'views on gun control' and the way it's written indicates one of WLP's PR people wrote it, or maybe himself in some "WLP Doctrine" on gun control because it is a sanitized list of simple, clear, specific, and bite-sized positions on specific aspects of the gun control debate. This is a slighty-less-than-blatant attempt to paint WLP in a specific, positive light. Given his extensive public speaking, published pieces, and the extent of litigation under his leadership, we can conclude there is more to him and his agenda than is reflected in this article.

My point: as a reader, it does not make sense to me how someone who is the chief of an organization that is so fervently opposed to gun control, it concocts strategies on what cases to present to SCOTUS and when, and the likelihood of getting pro-agenda actions passed (, has such a sanitized Wiki page. The guy has written a book, as cited, called "The Global War on Your Guns (2006)". I haven't read the book, but I suspect that he also believes that governments and powerful organizations are actively and clandestinely attempting to take guns away from people. This is not cited as one of his views on gun control.

I propose the following changes: 1) If the section is to be titled 'views on gun control', every bullet point must have a citation, or at least be marked as 'citation needed'. Considering half of the current bullets have no citation, there should be a warning about lack of sources. 2) Include a section on his motivations and feelings about gun rights and possession in general. Azadi { (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wayne LaPierre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wayne LaPierre article - Categories - Year of birth mistake?[edit]

The article on Wayne LaPierre lists his year of birth as 1949, but at the bottom of the article, under "Categories", it has him on a list of people born in 1948, where his name does, in fact, appear.

Doctor99~enwiki (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources said 1949, so I went with that. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


This text has been removed repeatedly:

In January 2012, LaPierre testified to a U.S. Senate Committee against increased firearms regulation, including opposition to universal background checks for firearms purchases. He claimed that only 62 firearms offenses were prosecuted in the U.S. in 2012, a number that documents indicated was only 1/200 of the actual number, which has risen during the Obama administration.[1]

In an article about a gun ontrol advocate, this text has been added repeatedly:

On the April 18, 2007, episode of MSNBC's program Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy about the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions included in her bill. She did not directly respond, instead stating it was more important that the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" (sic) of the type used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen prohibited by the law were those used by gangs and killers of police officers. That statement was factually incorrect; Cho's largest magazines held fifteen rounds, thus making them illegal under the AWB.[2] When Carlson pressed her twice more on the question about barrel shrouds, she admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, and incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." Carlson replied with, "No, No it's not."[3][4][5][6]


  1. ^ Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence on Jan. 30, 2013 (Transcript).
  2. ^
  3. ^ "'Tucker' for April 18 - Tucker -". April 19, 2007. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^

Can anyone give me a good reason why these two gaffes are being treated differently? Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
So if we add some secondary sources you'll be fine with adding a paragraph of comparable length to this article? Felsic2 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It would depend on the sources and what they say about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

There are arguments here about whether particular text or ideas are WP:UNDUE.

I recommend that you refer to the following definition from WP:NPV

Due and undue weight
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. [Emphasis mine]]

In other words, the way to determine whether a particular topic in the article has due or undue weight is to see how prominent those viewpoints are in WP:RS. If a particular statement by LaPierre or by his critics is repeated in multiple WP:RS, then it meets WP:UNDUE and belongs in the article. I think that a dozen references from major newspapers, broadcasting and digital sources such as New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, etc. would establish weight.

It is not a valid argument for somebody to simply say, "I think [in my opinion] this gives too much emphasis to an unimportant issue," if that issue has been covered by many WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

not a conservative?[edit]

Ok, this dispute is so absurd that it feels even strange trying to discuss it. DHeyward has made the assertion that LaPierre is not a conservative and remove the relevant info from the article. Funny that. He's given multiple speeches and addresses at the American Conservative Union, "America’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative organization" [3] [4] [5], the source I added (which DHeyward removed after asking me to add a source!) refers to him as a "conservative leader" [6], another source puts him in "the conservative orbit" [7], the guy rants about a "violent left" (sic) [8] and he refers to himself as a conservative [9].

Seriously, why is this even up for debate? It's sorta hard to take this kind of obfuscation seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Easily sourced, counterclaim is ridiculous. 'The firearms industry needs more customers' is a conservative position to take, regardless of party affliation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. LaPierre is a single issue figure. He advocates for gun rights. "Conservative" is a large ball of positions including abortion, immigration, taxation, foreign policy, states rights, and a whole host of other things. The Guardian source you cited uses "conservative" twice, neither referring to Lapierre but does refer to the people he was introduced to. He was introduced to "conservative leaders" which implies he is not one of them. He is certainly acquainted with them. That source doesn't even have the word activist. He is not known for any other opinion and indeed supports both Republicans and Democrats solely on their position on gun rights. Whether he is conservative or not is speculation as he does not share views other than on gun rights. His association or "orbits" if you will extends to overlap of conservative planks on gun rights but it's one way. There are leftists that support gun rights as well and we don't label them "conservative" based on their single position. He refers to himself as an NRA member, not as a conservative. The quote from CPAC We’ve got 5 million active NRA members, 25 million more who consider themselves NRA members, and we have gun owners and Second Amendment supporters all over this country. So if you are a member of the leftist media or a soldier for the violent left, a violent criminal, a drug cartel gang member or a would-be terrorist, hear this: You’re not going to win and you will not defeat us. Even if you subscribe to the belief that being in favor of gun ownership rights is conservative, it's a single conservative position that doesn't define a persons ideology. Being a pro-life advocate is a conservative position but it hardly qualifies calling the Pope "conservative" based on a single position. Again, find a source that says he is a conservative activist and not just a single issue advocate. --DHeyward (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"He was introduced to "conservative leaders" which implies he is not one of them. " - speaking of nonsense, what the source actually says is "Trump called LaPierre to the White House for a special meeting of conservative leaders". The conclusion that somehow this implies LaPierre is not a conservative is your own inference/original research, and a strange one at that. And seriously, the dude has spoken at CPAC and ACU almost every year. I have no idea what semantic games you're trying to engage in with respect to the "conservative orbit" description, they just don't make sense. And what about the CPAC quote? He's explicitly attacking "leftist media" (sic) and "violent left" (sic) - I guess we could describe him as "right wing" instead then. But I'm not sure what you think the CPAC quote shows, or why you're bring it up. You follow the quote with some irrelevant non-sequiturs so it's sort of hard to respond to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Trump has lots of meetings with conservative leaders. Sometimes he invites people to join them. Read further and it says “Wayne, I would say they know you,” said Trump, referring to the group of conservative leaders. "Wayne" isn't part of the group which is why "they" are referred to separately in the source. LaPierre believes that gun owners are being attacked by the "leftist media" but that doesn't mean that he believes the "leftist media" is limiting their attack to conservative gun owners or that all gun owners are therefore conservative. If you don't understand the difference between single issue advocacy vs. an entire ideology, perhaps you shouldn't be editing these types of articles. If you can't understand that being just for "gun rights" or "pro-life" doesn't make a person a conservative, nor does being against the death penalty make someone liberal. Try to pigeonhole a pro-life and anti-death penalty priest as a liberal or conservative and you should be able to reason why the inference is so poor. If the priest then asks liberals to donate to end the death penalty and asks conservatives to end abortion even you should be able to see labeling a persons ideology on single issue positions is poor reasoning. "Conservative" is simply an inaccurate label without foundation as his views beyond gun rights are unknown. Perhaps it is easier to explain Gun Violence Archive to you - it's non-partisan and founded by gun owner and former NRA member Mark Bryant. Extrapolating whether Bryant is "liberal" or "conservative" is just as pointless and fruitless and baseless. Bryant and his statistics are opposed by many gun rights advocates as they believe it conflicts with their ideology. But that doesn't make Bryant "liberal" or his archive "partisan" no matter where he speaks or who donates money to his group. These are single issue individuals, not an ideology. The only "game" is accurately describing them and not pigeon holing people into boxes they don't ascribe to. --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how much original research you make, and political arguments you throw forth, if the reliable sources disagree with you. Sorry bud. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Then find a source that says he's a conservative. The Guardian doesn't. His speech doesn't. No matter what you think he is, the sources don't say it. BTW, nice to see you both at this article. Whatever brought you here? It's getting time for an IBAN, I think.--DHeyward (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources have been provided. The fact you're engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not my problem. And what are those last three sentences suppose to mean? Are you insinuating something? How about you stop playing cute and come out and say it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Are there reliable sources that state LaPierre is a conservative? If so, where/what are they? If not, the article can't state he is a conservative. People work for Catholic hospitals and non-profit groups that have "Catholic" in the organization's name, does that mean the CEO or director is Catholic?
Not one of the links provided above states unequivocally that LaPierre is a Conservative. It's obvious from a couple of them that he doesn't consider himself to be on the Left, but for all we know, the guy could be more moderate. There is a two-party system (Republican and Democrat) in this country, but there is not just Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal. Many Americans feel they are neither. What I see happening here is a severe case of WP:SYNTH in order to make a biased WP:POINT. There's no reliable source where LaPierre is quoted to say he's Conservative, but by golly, he's appeared at Conservative events, so that surely makes him Conservative? We don't allow that kind of assumption for articles and the long-time editors fighting to keep LaPierre Conservative in this article should know it.
Bottom line: We use WP:RS in Wikipedia, most especially in the case of WP:BLPs, and we sure don't assign political ideology without a reliable source to support it. Until a reliable source is found where he names his political leaning(s), this article should not state what his political preference is. All we know is that he is the CEO of an organization that represents the Constitutional Second Amendment rights of all Americans from both sides, not just the Conservatives. Is that "guilt" by association? Doesn't matter. We don't do guilt by association in Wikipedia articles. BLP policy forbids it. -- ψλ 14:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but a guy who gives an annual keynote speech to the largest grassroots conservative organization in the country is quite different from someone who just happens to work for a Catholic hospital. It's more like the guy that always addresses the annual conference of Catholic hospitals - yeah, they're Catholic. There is a reliable source. This "unequivocally" is just a way to wikilawyer this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You're missing a key point in all of his speaking engagements: He represents the NRA and is being asked to address these groups as a representative of the NRA, not a representative of himself. You cannot and should not assume what his personal political leanings are if he has never stated what they are. None of the sources you provided supports that he, himself, is Conservative. If you have a direct quote, that's a whole 'nother thing. But you don't have one. What you are doing is classic WP:SYNTH and it's inappropriate for a BLP, period. -- ψλ 16:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"is being asked to address these groups as a representative of the NRA, not a representative of himself." - seriously? That's how you're gonna split them hairs? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Not hair splitting. If you don't know the difference I can only assume you have never worked for or have been on the board of a major corporation, a large corporate entity, or a large non-profit organization. High-ranking representatives of those entities represent only their professional interests, not their own - and it's typically part of their employment agreement that they not represent or disclose their own political biases while on the job. It's likely the reason why you cannot find anything on LaPierre where he says he's personally and politically one way or the other. That information will probably only come out after he's no longer with the NRA. Until then, we cannot use WP:SYNTH to prove something that has not been reported by a reliable source. That's BLP policy. -- ψλ 16:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it is. He's being described as a "conservative activist" or a "conservative leader". Which is exactly what he is, even if in some dark corners of his soul he's actually a bleeding heart liberal. I mean, it's possible that people like Coulter or Milo don't really believe most of the stuff they spew out and are driven mostly by financial concerns (as a hypothetical example), nonetheless it is correct to describe them as conservative or conservative activists because that is precisely what they do. I mean, if you go to Catholic mass every Sunday, take Catholic communion and participate in other Catholic sacraments, and hell, are even ordained in the Catholic church, you're a Catholic. Even if in your heart of hearts you're really a Zoroastrian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Winkelvi is correct that it's synth and the examples are classic synth. And per your example yes, at Catholic conferences, the speakers are not all Catholic. It's sometimes easy to tell as they are called Rabbi or Imam. It would be synth and obviously silly to say the "Rabbi is Catholic because he spoke at the Conference of Catholic Bishops" so please stop applying the same type of SYNTH about LaPierre. See Eric Yoffie#Views on interfaith relations for an obvious example of a speaker that is not under the broad stroke VM painted above. --DHeyward (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not synth. Sources have been provided and you're just looking for silly reasons to reject them in pursuit of denying the obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources were provided, but none of them say LaPierre is a political Conservative. Not one. Until such sources can be provided, there is zero evidence that LaPierre is a political Conservative and such content needs to remain out of the article per BLP guidelines. -- ψλ 20:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"In response to LaPierre's claim that "we," which likely meant conservatives considering the audience, "are the majority in this country," - [10]. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"which likely meant conservatives considering the audience" "Which likely meant" is an assumption and not a confirmation. What is the full context? Regardless, still nothing stating that LaPierre is a Conservative and no direct quote from him. This is still classic WP:SYNTH as well as WP:OR. -- ψλ 00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I literally just posted a quote from a reliable source along with a link to that source. I'm stunned that you'd label this both synthesis (which relates to the use of two or more sources to improperly draw a conclusion or contrast each other), and original research (which means not using sources.) That's incredibly improper of you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You literally posted a quote, but that's all. There's vague inference but that's still not enough to support the content. Attempting to do so via this quote is synth, nothing more. I see you have less than 3500 edits, perhaps your lack of editing experience is hampering your ability to understand the importance of resliable sources and no original research/use of synth, especially in BLPs? Whatever the case, there's still no RS evidence LaPierre is a political Conservative and any claim he is cannot be added to the article without it. -- ψλ 08:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Salary citation[edit]

Old citation is 404. New citation should be: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericscoles (talkcontribs) 16:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post, salary cited here is inaccurate. He gets about a million a year. The 2015 salary was exceptional because he had a pension fund payout which he had to take or lose. That boosted the salary past the norm. Theonemacduff (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

More information on his pre-NRA and early NRA career[edit]

There are several articles that discuss Mr. LaPierre's activities as a Democrat in Virginia. These include references to his work on the McGovern campaign in Virginia [1]

Also, from his official NRA biography [2], it would be relevant to include his activity as an NRA lobbyist for the NRA-ILA both regionally and as its national director before he became the Executive Vice President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swazman (talkcontribs) 14:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


Proposal for a new section on Advocating for Overthrow of the United States Government, and Treason on behalf of Russia[edit]

For over 30 years, their primary recruitment tactic has been open and willful violation of 18 USC Sect. 2385, "Advocating Overthrow". This needs to be documented. This can be documented from their own sources and advertising, as well as the resultant violence and Terrorism that has resulted from this strategy to recruit new members, primarily the mentally deranged.

As for the Russia factor, this is a developing story, and appears that Russia has used the NRA's "Advocating Overthrow" strategy to destabilize the United States of America, as well as to seat Donald Trump. This is a developing story, and it appears that arrests will be made. "Russia investigators likely got access to NRA's tax filings, secret donors" (McClatchy, DC Bureau)

Also, The Advocating Overthrow strategy, as well as the Russia factor have to have been signed off by LaPierre. Someone deleted this talk section. This needs to be in the article, whomever deleted this section a few minutes ago must approve of the Overthrow of the United States Government, or of Russia's activities using the NRA and Wayne LaPierre. They were not duped, and this is how the history books will read. Will political bullshit keep what the history books will contain out of the WikiPedia article because it gives Christian Conservatives "bad optics"? This is a serious proposal, and what will be coming to the article is well researched, with dates, advertising contract numbers, etc, all third party sourced and within the guidelines. The reader will be left with the question of why they would do it, no conclusions will be made (NPOV), or as Fox News used to say "We report, you decide".

The fact is that the Advocating Overthrow strategy has been wildly successful for the NRA, and Wayne LaPierre has to be credited for it, because that is the way it happened.

Again, the vast majority of sources will be the NRA itself, and will document the transformation of the NRA into an organization for arming for overthrow under LaPierre's guidance.

Instead of being a yellowbellied coward by deleting this talk section, how about identifying yourself in this section, and giving your reasons for not including the FACTS? (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you desiring to make a contribution to the Russia Hoax, a clever ploy to change the political topic from improper emails & emailing to Russia, as if the hypothesis that Russia uncovered improper emails were more important than the content of the emails and how emails were handled? I suggest that the article on La Pierre be objective and deal with the facts concerning the man, not an attempt to practice politics. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC))

NPOV? MIA[edit]

Hey editors, I'm writing to you to see if this is truly NPOV. Here's the first graf of the article:

As executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, he advocated armed guards for schools in response to the school shootings at Sandy Hook and Stoneman Douglas. He supports longer sentences for gun crime, institutionalization of the mentally ill, and the suppression of violent video-games.

It sounds like a positive portrayal of LaPierre's political beliefs -- rather than describing a more even-handed picture of the man and the consequences of his stances. Maybe we could add like "LaPierre has come under criticism from gun control activists for..."

What do you think? (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC) (Redacted)

That is a seriously poor intro for a BLP article. Needs serious work. Springee (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
"Has come under criticism" is a weasel word method to attack somebody. If you allege somebody has done bad things, you first need to have a clear axiology, a basis for deeming behavior good vs bad. Then you need proof. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC))

Should the Criticism Section be Deleted as Violation of BLP?[edit]

What do you think? Is the section on "Criticism" of La Pierre actually a thinly disguised attack piece, which should be deleted as derogatory allegations? (PeacePeace (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC))