Loading AI tools
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In contrast to these deletions , these Timelines are to be included in the "See also" section for reference, dated item examples given as justification:
1) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)
2) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)
3) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)
X1\ (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
3 years, which shows you have not only not read the Timelines, you have not read Maria Butina § 2011's timeline either.
Your timelines cover 3 years? "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" starts in 1986, over 33 years ago. Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections § 2011 has "Maria Butina founds the "Right to Bear Arms [ru]" organization.[21][22]" and (April 29 – May 1) Nashville lawyer G. Kline Preston IV introduces Russian Senator Alexander Torshin to National Rifle Association (NRA) president David Keene at the NRA annual meeting in Pittsburgh.[23][24] A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.[25]; over eight and a half years ago. X1\ (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
considered guilty? ... what are you talking about? Why are you not just following the RSs and wp process? X1\ (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
why isn't it in the body of the article... yet. X1\ (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. In my view, based on
editorial judgment and common sense, we should also limit the see also entries to a
reasonable numberof links that
would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, which I think the current version also does not do. @Springee: Five links is in my view not a
reasonable numberof links. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples from other segments:
4) Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
cont. ... X1\ (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
a new consensus, it is a challenge to the established consensus. X1\ (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
References
In 2011, she founded a Russian pro-gun rights group called the Right to Bear Arms.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |authors=
ignored (help)In 2011, she founded a Russian pro-gun rights group called the Right to Bear Arms.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |authors=
ignored (help)I'm not familiar with your laws, but I think you need to hold demonstrations!
The above discussion has become hard to follow due the volume of content vs discussion text above. I've added an UNDUE tag to the See Also section. The timeline articles are child articles of the parent topic Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. The child articles include Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as well as the related "Timeline of investigation..." articles. The primary topic is already linked in the Russian interference section of the NRA article. The inclusion of 4 links to the child articles in the see-also section is UNDUE and simply unneeded. @X1\ and Shinealittlelight: Springee (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This is tantamount to vandalism.
I would welcome the user Springee to provide an explanation for removing referenced content, which has been concisely worded and maintains NPOV. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe the paragraph on the NYSAG's lawsuit should clarify that the basis for the NYSAG's jurisdiction to seek dissolution of the NRA is that the NRA's founding charter was granted by NYS.[1] [2] This is a rarely known fact that speaks directly to the authority to dissolve an ostensibly national organization. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we please collate here links to research, reports, and make a case to include mention of links to the far-right and white nationalist organisations.
It should go without saying that any organisation with links to the far-right would warrant mention of that on Wikipedia. There should be nothing controversial about adding simple, established matters of fact to an article.
There's at least one well-documented case of a link to the Australian far-right political party One-Nation.
Some research on the NRA, sociology and race:
WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
offer financial supportto far-right organizations. But the links you provided just say that a group asked them for funds. I don’t see where any were provided. Do they have links to white supremacist organizations. Personally, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But, that requires excellent sourcing. WP:IRS O3000 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So the next stage is to offer up a suggested edit (here on talk) to see if this can be worded in a way that meets the concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Stop with the argumentum ad hominem. Address what people have said, such as making this about more then one pathetically small Australian party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Geez, people, lighten up. My comments were not directed at any contributors but at the slanted direction of the article. It wasn't an ad hominem attack but an ad articleslanted attack. It's a slanted article. Deserves a slanted article tag.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The 3O has been launched [].Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Do Wikipedia articles about other special interest groups routinely mention "links" to far-left groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.157.242 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible to mention the anti-NRA movie Miss Sloane on this page? Thanks in advance. 02:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The killing of Philando Castile was a wrongful death case, not a second amendment or gun rights case, as explained in this youtube video link (at 17:00 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEWJIHuD1uI Including it in the section named "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners" to insinuate racism makes as much sense as accusing the ACLU of racism for not claiming his first amendment free speech rights were violated. It is just sophistry.2001:5B0:50D6:D028:69EF:D065:EC41:F747 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
(anything worth to mention ?)
https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=%22NRA%22+2020+Trump+%22election%22
--Präziser (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Just heard in the news the NRA has filed for bankruptcy. Can someone add that in please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.89.96 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Since there is some question above whether the NY law suit should be mentioned in the lede, NRA's proposed reaction to the NY lawsuit should be subject to the same question. NRA was chartered in New York State in 1871; NY Gov Andrew Cuomo and his SAG are currently seeking to destroy NRA over gun politics. NRA is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to allow it to reincorporate out from under the thumb (or iron heel) of Emperor Cuomo of the Empire State. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The long and short is, yeah. the NRA is basically moving out of NY.
... and honestly, good riddance. The NRA has become somewhat infamous for failing to actually do their job. But, in any case, there likely should be a mention of it moving out, yeah. --SkynetPR (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This states "A survey of NRA members" and points to a survey. The survey is of the general public, 2703 people, of which 169 self-identified as NRA members. That is nowhere near a sufficient sample size when claiming to be representative of the five million NRA members. There should be 500-750, depending on the confidence level and interval. Is this a problem? At the very least it appears the wording should be changed.
Meanwhile, the NRA commissioned a survey of 1,000 members and got quite different results. https://web.archive.org/web/20140821155836/http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf QuilaBird (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
One thing I think is missing from the history aspect of this is the lack of mention of it's rivalry (in the 70's/80's and beyond) with HCI (currently known as the Brady campaign). We currently talk about their motivation in this time frame as it relates to the '68 GCA.....but we omit all the things gun control groups (at the same time) were trying to pass and the NRA's fight against it. To put it in another way, if you go back and read any publication by the NRA from the 80's....you were going to see a lot of gripes about Sarah Brady, Ted Kennedy, HCI, and so forth. Not so much about the GCA.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Both NY and DC filed suit 6 Aug (NY seeking dissolution of the org). They've been added to the body with refs; should a mention be added to the lead? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is another opinion article that questions the merits of the "shut them down" objective of James's actions. It's from Bloomberg, hardly a NRA ally. [] We have op'eds on the left and right who are concerned about the stated objective of shutting down the NRA with this lawsuit. Springee (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I typically see lawsuits have their own section in articles. Pending lawsuits are facts in that they are legal proceedings happening to that organization. I feel it might be valid to list under a section called "Lawsuits" or similar wording. That isn't uncommon on Wikipedia. Any organization of any size will be under constant lawsuit. So I don't see how this should be in the Lead. If every organization listed on Wikipedia had their current lawsuits listed in the lead, that might make sense but, to do otherwise is biased. Additionally, not every related lawsuit for every organization will be noteworthy in the long term. I have to agree 100% with Nighshift36. This is not a newspaper and not all lawsuits have enough impact for the organization to be mentioned as significant enough to the organization to be mentioned. Many lawsuits are dismissed. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty. The presence of a lawsuit does not in any way shape or form mean guilt or culpability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasenwise (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Every large organization has many lawsuits filed against it. Even more so an advocacy organization where lawsuits are a common tactic by their opponents. The existence of one does not per se make it lead material or article material. Finally, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a place to highlight narrower items. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Following up on this discussion, it's clear that the NRA used bankruptcy as a way to side step the NY AG lawsuit. A judge has since stopped the bankruptcy. Should that be in the lead? My feeling is it shouldn't because when we take the 10-20 year outlook the bankruptcy is effectively not going to happen (well at least the one filed in 2020). The reason the NYAG lawsuit is in the lead is it could close the whole organization if the AG gets what she is asking for. However, if that fails and new leadership steps in then the long term impact is less clear. The bankruptcy filing now has no impact on the NYAG lawsuit so it no longer belongs in the lead as part of the summary. Springee (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I contend Is this content is significant and momentous in NRA history and propose such that it be should included at the end of the lead?
In August 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit seeking to dissolve the NRA, alleging fraud, financial misconduct, and misuse of charitable funds by some of its executives. In January 2021, the NRA filed for bankruptcy in Texas, though a federal judge later rejected the petition, ruling it was intended to avoid the New York lawsuit.
soibangla (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Support: as proposer. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that some editors are not considering the full context of events, but would prefer to unlink the BK filing from the AG suit when they are inextricably linked, and that's what makes it leadworthy. soibangla (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog, Atiru, and North8000:, we have a dispute regarding this recent change to the lead . I agree with North8000 that, in general, this is not an improvement and the consensus version of the lead should stand. Atiru and Roxy, you both wish to change the lead so please make the case for the change. Springee (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
"extensive training and safety programs"is of encyclopaedic significance. Springee and others, would you mind pointing me towards reliable sources that indicate this position?
Mechling, Jay. "Boy Scouts, the National Rifle Association, and the Domestication of Rifle Shooting." American Studies 53, no. 1 (2014): 5-25. doi:10.1353/ams.2014.0025.
Lacombe, Matthew J. "The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners: The National Rifle Association’s Cultivation, Dissemination, and Use of a Group Social Identity." The journal of politics, Vol.81, no. 4, 2019 pp. 1342-1356.
Elsbach, Kimberly D., and C. B. Bhattacharya. “Defining Who You Are by What You're Not: Organizational Disidentification and the National Rifle Association.” Organization Science, vol. 12, no. 4, 2001, pp. 393–413. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3085979. Accessed 19 Aug. 2021.
O’Neill, Kevin Lewis. “Armed Citizens and the Stories They Tell: The National Rifle Association’s Achievement of Terror and Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities 9, no. 4 (April 2007): 457–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X05281390.
Arnold, Robin. 2013. “NRA Direct Contributions Decline.” Follow the Money. Available at 〈http://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/nra-direct-contributions-decline/
Steidley, Trent. “BIG GUNS OR BIG TALK? HOW THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION MATTERS FOR CONCEAL CARRY WEAPONS LAWS.” Mobilization. 23, no. 1 (2018): 101–125.
“Wayne’s World; The National Rifle Association.” The Economist. 431, no. 9141 (2019).
“US Doctors React to Criticism from National Rifle Association.” BMJ : British medical journal. 363 (2018): k4795–k4795.
It's my dance to get deeply into this over a sentence. Competency training is pervasive in NRA, and even in this article. It should be noted that when I brought up the "unsourced", my removal wasn't only based on the policy note ala the usual wililawyering situation. Nor was it removing "sky is blue" statements based solely on technicalities. In tandem with the policy note, I also noted that IMO it was factually wrong and not suitably sourcable. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
And yes, the extensive range of non-advocacy stuff that the NRA does is massively undercovered in this article. I've not watched the article closely enough to know why. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
On 27 October, I added a mention of the 2021 National Rifle Association ransomware attack to this article, and it was reverted by Springee with the edit summary RECENT, wait to see if this amounts to anything.
See diff. I'm not attached to the format or wording I used in that initial edit, but coverage of the ransomware attack has continued, as can be seen in the article. As of right now, should this event be mentioned in this main article? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a new story covering NRA available here, I'm sure it will contain some information useful to the article but this is not a subject I know much about
Thanks very much
. John Cummings (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Basma95.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shane mullen.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to National Rifle Association has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: In a 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015.
To: In 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015. Folgsta (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies if this has been discussed before. I did check Talk Archives 1-7 and (perhaps surprisingly) did not spot previous discussion - it mostly seemed to be Content talk. There was a lot of it though!
I believe there is a case for moving this article from "National Rifle Association" to "National Rifle Association of America". "National Rifle Association" should then redirect to the disambiguation page.
My reasons are:
Correctness & WP:CRITERIA
Undue Weight/Systemic Bias
Downstream users
I acknowledge this is a significant proposal, undoubtedly controversial in some quarters (and completely obvious in others!). But whilst this is a large and significant article, being "first" or prominent in the media is not a good enough reason in itself to occupy the generic namespace. I look forward to comments. Best wishes and good shooting.
Hemmers (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.