Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) |
→Edit break, NRA-Russia discussion: comment |
||
Line 576: | Line 576: | ||
::::::::::::The ''Wall Street Journal'' OPINION | POTOMAC WATCH piece is devoid of substance and full of random musings by an NRA lawyer/not lawyer. Let's pass on this one too.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
::::::::::::The ''Wall Street Journal'' OPINION | POTOMAC WATCH piece is devoid of substance and full of random musings by an NRA lawyer/not lawyer. Let's pass on this one too.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::The WSJ article is making a few claims. First is that the lawyer didn't say something she is reported to have said (which I admit doesn't directly impact the current wiki text). The other, which is confirmed by more than one source, is that no sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims. That is a rather significant bit of information which shouldn't be hidden from readers. Do you have any sources that say there have been followup reports that corroborate the original? We can always attribute the no follow up claims to the various sources rather than in Wikipedia voice. After all, the WSJ is a very significant source. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::The WSJ article is making a few claims. First is that the lawyer didn't say something she is reported to have said (which I admit doesn't directly impact the current wiki text). The other, which is confirmed by more than one source, is that no sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims. That is a rather significant bit of information which shouldn't be hidden from readers. Do you have any sources that say there have been followup reports that corroborate the original? We can always attribute the no follow up claims to the various sources rather than in Wikipedia voice. After all, the WSJ is a very significant source. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::OK. I have no objection to simply stating that no (publication) sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:50, 22 May 2018
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
RfC: Lack of advocacy for black gun owners
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.
Should the following paragraph be added to a sub-section entitled "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners" under the "Criticism" heading?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans.[1][2][3][4] Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners.[1][5][6][7][8][3][9][10][11] The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias.[1] Others have argued that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement.[12][2] The NRA came under criticism from some of its own members and other gun rights advocates in June 2017 for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer at a traffic stop.[11][13][5] Castile had a valid firearm permit, informed the police officer about his gun, and was subsequently fatally shot by the police officer when he allegedly attempted to retrieve his wallet.[11][14] According to The Washington Post, the NRA had typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting.[11] Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners, noting that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by racial minorities.[15][16][17]
References
- ^ a b c "Dallas Shootings Underscore NRA Hypocrisy, Critics Say". usnews.com.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ a b Beckett, Lois (2016-07-10). "Philando Castile's killing puts NRA's gun rights mission at a crossroads". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ a b "Why African-Americans are gun-shy about the NRA". myajc. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ Eligon, John; Robles, Frances (2016-07-08). "Police Shootings Highlight Unease Among Black Gun Owners". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-12-05.
- ^ a b CNN, Deena Zaru,. "Activists accuse NRA of racism for silence over Philando Castile". CNN. Retrieved 2017-12-03.
{{cite news}}
:|last=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Newton, Creede. "Gun control's racist past and present". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2017-12-03.
- ^ "NRA offers tepid comment on police shooting of Minnesota man". POLITICO. Retrieved 2017-12-03.
- ^ "For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue". mcclatchydc. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ After the Castile Verdict, Some Ask: Where is The NRA?, retrieved 2017-12-06
- ^ Slayton, Robert (2016-07-12). "The NRA Is Racist". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-12-05.
- ^ a b c d "Some gun owners are disturbed by the Philando Castile verdict. The NRA is silent". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-06-21.
- ^ "Opinion | How the NRA's allegiance to cops undermines its credibility on gun rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Valentine, Matt. "How the NRA conquered Washington and abandoned gun owners like me". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2017-06-21.
- ^ "What the police officer who shot Philando Castile said about the shooting". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ "Gun Control Is "Racist"?". New Republic. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ Winkler, Adam. "The Secret History of Guns". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ Winkler, Adam (2016-07-15). "The right to bear arms has mostly been for white people". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
Survey
- Oppose. Again. You have proposed this multiple times and tried forcing the material in. I don't think that it's out of line at this point to question why you've spent so much effort to put this particular issue in. It's starting to look like a crusade. I'd also note that you didn't present this version for discussion before jumping straight to a RfC, which seems to be your weapon of choice lately. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - mainly on NPOV grounds. This cuts both ways, and bears mentioning if included, that African Americans as a voting block vote in the 90% range [1] for Democrats, and in general being critical, as a bloc, of the NRA - e.g. No group is less supportive of the NRA’s policies than black Americans, Washington Post, 8 March 2018 (and no lack of sources). Furthermore, if we were to devote such discourse to African American relations with the NRA, we would have to do so for a number of ethnic groups as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as written -
The material regarding contemporary racism as it relates to recent cases is already in the article and close in text to what is proposed above.(Edit: I didn't realize it was removed. I would be OK with restoring as it was) The portion on historic racism was recently a stand alone subsection and recently removed. I'm not sure it has sufficient weight for inclusion but I'm largely indifferent either way. If consensus is include the material on historic racism I suggest we keep it as a separate section as it was here [[2]]. Springee (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC) - Comment - Niteshift36: Actually, it is out of line for you to question why Snooganssnoogans chooses to spend so much effort on this particular issue. Cinteotl (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. I'll give it all the consideration it deserves. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Always a pleasure. Do you still stand by the reasons that you presented against a similar but larger version of the sub-section?: "The fact that they give the police the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are in does not make the NRA racist. It makes the NRA cautious. Unlike most of the so called news organizations that automatically attack white police officers for shooting black suspects." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support. The text is reliably sourced, and the topic in question has received extensive RS coverage. I'd like to note that none of the votes above present policy-based reasons for opposing this, with one editor even going as far as to say that African-Americans are unable to take reasoned stances on the NRA, and that the content should be excluded for this reason. The editor suggests, without any evidence, that African-Americans oppose the NRA simply because they are partisan Democrats, yet when one actually reads the source that's cited[3], the African-Americans explicitly identify the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners as the source of their skepticism towards the organization. Even if African-Americans were the feeble-minded partisans that the editor suggests they are, that has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. We are not here to evaluate how right or wrong the criticism is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose This is basically an essay: argumentative (even though sourced), prejudicial, and inappropriate for this article about an organization. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Can you please elaborate? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the challenge. I think my reasons are clear: it’s an essay, argumentative, and prejudicial. I will elaborate: Basically, this is an extended, one-sided essay criticizing an organization for NOT doing enough of something the critics think it ought to be doing. That seems unencyclopedic to me, and it would need a lot more WEIGHT of coverage before we would include it. Your sources are mostly POV (I especially liked the Aljazeera source); some are op-eds; many, maybe a majority, are specifically about the Castile incident (where this criticism might be mentioned, although it currently isn’t). This article already has multiple, well sourced sections about criticism of the NRA. I don’t think this deserves to become another one. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Can you please elaborate? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
*Oppose An article on an organization with 147 years of history/content, millions of members, and at least dozens of areas of activity. Cherry-picked constructions / talking points by political opponents are really undue. As a sidebar, the more creative type of "they are this because they didn't do this in this case" really need to be taken in that context. Particularly so because I believe that the NRA directly intervenes in only a very tiny fraction of such situations for people of any color.North8000 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Which of the reliable sources are political opponents? According to WaPo, the NRA are eager to get directly involved in cases involving white gun owners. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
One of their political opponents saying that the NRA "are eager to" is not a refutation of the fact that they only do so for a small fraction. BTW one of the two most prominent NRA-involved cases for the last century was a black person. (McDonald)North8000 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)- So the Washington Post is a political opponent of the NRA? Can you substantiate with RS that the NRA are prominent for their defenses of black gun owners? So far, there are 17 sources that contain critiques of the NRA for failing to do precisely that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Which of the reliable sources are political opponents? According to WaPo, the NRA are eager to get directly involved in cases involving white gun owners. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a well cited hit piece, constructed through selectively choosing which cites are needed to build a one-sided presentation. Where are the cites for describing free classes for single mom's who happen to be black? Where are the cites for teaching newly-freed slaves gun safety and marksmanship to counter the KKK? Where are the cites for teaching LGBTQ at no charge after Pulse, many of whom were black or bi-racial or multi-racial? The NRA becomes involved in very few individual cases. The omission of involvement in one particular case proves nothing. Looks like the WP community is in agreement in not including this one-sided presentation. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Please suggest some text with reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support The precise wording is not perfect and doesn't need to be, but the quantity of criticism the NRA has received for dog whistling to white nationalists could fill volumes. Not mentioning it at all would be like talking about Donald Trump or the Republican Party without acknowledging that people of color have not always been thrilled with them. The NRA only zealously aligns itself with law enforcement when it suits them; when it comes to enforcing gun laws, they are more than willing to demonize law enforcement officers and find ways to hobble police or drain their resources. If this were a BLP, we'd have to find near-perfectly neutral wording that didn't risk defaming the subject before we could go live with it, but the NRA is not a living person and if the wording is flawed, we can keep revising it in the article. Calling criticism "hit pieces" or "biased" just begs the question. That's why we call it criticism. Critics hit you; they're not your friends. All that really matters is the fact that those who criticize the NRA on race are not WP:FRINGE; they're not kooky flat-earthers. They represent a wide swath of highly notable media, pundits, academics, and activists. Summarize what they say about the NRA in a moderate tone, same as we would if this were an article about a Tranformers movie or proposed high speed rail line. Critics criticize and we summarize. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support This is a well-sourced and well-written description of the criticism. If there is RS coverage of the "other side" of this issue, then is should also be included in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.–dlthewave ☎ 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support Fully support based on the many references and attention it has received. ContentEditman (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support. The text proposed here needs some refinement (I think it can also be shrunk a bit), but it this has been a consistent strain of criticism reflected in various sources over a series of years, and is therefore noteworthy. Is this the central critique of the NRA, or the most important aspect of its history or politics? No. But it is worth some mention. The proposed text also frames this all as criticism and is careful to give the organization's response. Neutralitytalk 03:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
is careful to give the organization's response.
Really? The proposed paragraph says, in totality, eight words on that subject: "The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias." A vague, basically meaningless rebuttal, cited to an article which has a strong anti-NRA slant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)- This is a problem I've seen repeatedly in this article. A criticism, fair or not, of the organization is added but the details of what the NRA did and any legitimate rebuttal is not. Including the criticism is often legitimate but we fail the readers of the article if we don't offer sufficient details for people to understand and make up their own minds. I had this exact issue recently when trying to include material that explained why the NRA was against computerized sales records mandated by the ATF. Here is a rebuttal to Winkler's article. This is the sort of material that would cut down on many of the original objections since it puts things on context. [[4]] Springee (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think we should include a self-published 300-word blog post by a BA student, and I think it's ludicrous to demand that I add such content. Some editors think the content is too long, and should therefore be deleted in full. Other editors think the content should be shorter, and should therefore be deleted in full. I do not understand why these editors can't identify the precise sentences that should be deleted, and the precise sentences that should be added. For some reason, I'm expected to write the "perfect" paragraph according to each editor's subjective demands or else it must be deleted in full. I have honestly never experienced this before in my Wikipedia editing career (one that's full of edit disputes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Other editors think the content should be shorter, and should therefore be deleted in full.
Snoogans, your understanding is wrong. When people say "oppose" they mean DELETE. They do not mean to trim the paragraph or rewrite it in a better manner. They mean that in their opinion this topic should not be in the article. At all. (My comment in this thread was not an editing suggestion; it was just to question one of User:Neutrality's arguments for inclusion.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- The material was put up by a U Wisconsin Prof who has relevant credentials. Thus it gives us an idea what an expert in the field thinks. More to the point, it offers the details that the original material lacked. Springee (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think we should include a self-published 300-word blog post by a BA student, and I think it's ludicrous to demand that I add such content. Some editors think the content is too long, and should therefore be deleted in full. Other editors think the content should be shorter, and should therefore be deleted in full. I do not understand why these editors can't identify the precise sentences that should be deleted, and the precise sentences that should be added. For some reason, I'm expected to write the "perfect" paragraph according to each editor's subjective demands or else it must be deleted in full. I have honestly never experienced this before in my Wikipedia editing career (one that's full of edit disputes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is a problem I've seen repeatedly in this article. A criticism, fair or not, of the organization is added but the details of what the NRA did and any legitimate rebuttal is not. Including the criticism is often legitimate but we fail the readers of the article if we don't offer sufficient details for people to understand and make up their own minds. I had this exact issue recently when trying to include material that explained why the NRA was against computerized sales records mandated by the ATF. Here is a rebuttal to Winkler's article. This is the sort of material that would cut down on many of the original objections since it puts things on context. [[4]] Springee (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose As with the previous discussion and previous RFC on this same issue. This is undue and borderline fringe. MelanieN also makes some fine points as well about the section, it's placement, and sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- definitely something that the NRA is known for; see also Mulford Act. For some reason, the Act article does not mention NRA's support for it, even though a source to this effect is included in the bibliography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support, with some minor copy editing. The material is well-sourced and easily fulfills the requirements of WP:DUEWEIGHT. The material is relevant analysis of the NRA's social/political stance. Its inclusion would benefit readers seeking to gain a fuller understanding of this organization.- MrX 🖋 19:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would note that the argument "to gain a filler understanding..." would also apply to our late Feb conversation regarding why the NRA says they oppose electronic purchase records. Sources, including attributed statements from the NRA, saying why they oppose various laws would certainly help readers gain a better understanding of the organization. Springee (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support - The proposed content is well-written, and the subject has received significant mainstream coverage.
The opposing comments that attacked the motives of the OP, blamed blacks for not supporting NRA policies, and said the article already criticizes the NRA enough should be ignored. (As should those which provide no policy-based argument.) The comments that argued the subject isn’t sufficiently weighty, or is fringe, are belied by the 17 cites in the proposed content. The comments that argued the proposed content is one-sided, prejudicial, inappropriate, or uses selectively chosen or POV cites are unavailing in the absence of any evidence. Overall, among the comments that make credible policy-based arguments, the consensus is in favor of the proposed content. Cinteotl (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support in some form. The extensive sourcing shows that it's attracted enough wide-spread mainstream coverage to justify a paragraph. However, it might be worth working it into a larger section about the NRA and race - its positions on racial issues in general, its racial makeup, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of something, but not necessarily this proposed text. Some of this belongs in Shooting of Philando Castile#National Rifle Association, some of it belongs in Gun politics in the United States, and some of it belongs here. The parts specific to Philando Castile should go in that article, the parts about how gun control may have been used to restrict the rights of minorities should go to the gun politics article, and the parts that specifically criticize the NRA's involvement can be briefly summarized here and links included to those articles. At least, that's probably how I'd do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support see the news articles about wikipedia and guns linked near the top. We need to include well ref'd criticisms not just make this page an extension of the NRA website. Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support but leave out details of Shooting of Philando Castile. The link to the article is sufficient. The rest of the paragraph can be included, but of course the prose can always be improved later. Ward20 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support the majority of the text but not the title. The text seems to draw attention to a (notable) debate surrounding the subject, whereas the proposed title slants towards a claim that the debate has been settled and that lack of support for black gun ownership is already inherent in the NRA. I don't think anyone's political views are relevant here. The source material is OK, it's just the conflict between the source text and the title, which I have a problem with - A problem which could be easily solved by rewriting the title in order to have this content included. Edaham (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support but trim. I agree with Ward20. The subject should be covered, but the amount of coverage is undue. The Castile sentences should be the first to go, since at least as written they're about one particular case rather than about black gun owners in general. Also I agree with Edaham that the heading should be removed. It's choppy and generally undue to have a bolded heading for a single paragraph. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose unless significantly rewritten. For example the claim that the NRA's motivation in opposing mail-order sales (after Oswald shot Kennedy with a mail-order rifle) was to reduce gun ownership among minorities is incredible. I do believe the criticism should be mentioned, along with their defense(s), and the Castile case is a relevant and well-covered example. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support overall addition but that doesn't mean you can't argue sentence by sentence later about the details. The text is a bit inelegant because it has been compressed, presumably by edit warring - it could reasonably expand to multiple paragraphs. The last sentence there, if it checks out, is really interesting and would be worth exploring further - sounds like the NRA might have had its own Crassus moment. Wnt (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support but trim.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- Definitely too much for here. For the size of the NRA, there should be a few subarticles in which things like these can be covered IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Haha, for what it's worth, these Wikipedia squabbles are in the "news"[5][6]. :P Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's not entirely a joke that guns are anthropomorphized in some people's minds. You see the policies protecting living people being misapplied to guns as if guns themselves could be defamed or offended. Other topics too, but guns are often treated as a special case when they should be handled like any Wikipedia subject. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment None of the opposing editors have pointed to specific problems within the proposed content, nor have they suggested how it might be changed to assuage their concerns. A couple of editors have indicated that they hope this issue will go away. I wouldn't count on it. Editors may come and go, but the subject of systemic racism in the NRA is going to keep cropping up here until its addressed in the article. (This article has already hit the media. It won't take much for an activist to make it go viral.) Would you rather work to come up with a compromise/consensus now, or spend the next year going through this and every other WP dispute resolution processes (over and over and over?) Cinteotl (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's really true. What most are arguing is they don't see sufficient weight for inclusion. To paraphrase from another editor, the NRA is 147 years old and has lots of history and positions worth noting. So in that context they don't feel this information rises to the level of worth mentioning, hence weight. I'm rather neutral on that but I think it's wrong that we would include poorly supported claims of racism yet we don't include anything explaining the NRA's positions on big picture issues such as why the NRA is against universal background checks etc. Springee (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to address a couple of !votes that amount to "We can't include X unless we also include Y and Z", an argument that often appears on firearms-related talk pages. A couple of examples:
Furthermore, if we were to devote such discourse to African American relations with the NRA, we would have to do so for a number of ethnic groups as well
Where are the cites for describing free classes for single mom's who happen to be black? Where are the cites for teaching newly-freed slaves gun safety and marksmanship to counter the KKK? Where are the cites for teaching LGBTQ at no charge after Pulse, many of whom were black or bi-racial or multi-racial?
- The obvious solution is to include "all of the above" if it has received adequate RS coverage. However, the burden does not fall on a single editor to ensure that their specific edit brings the article into "balance". I would encourage editors who notice that something is missing to provide sources or add the information to the article. Alternatively, the article may be added to the "todo list" at the appropriate WikiProject. Remember that if (for example) reliable sources cover perceived bias against one racial group but not another, then the article should reflect that per WP:WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 19:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. The reason the WP:BLP policy is special is that ordinarily NPOV allows for temporary bias as part of the editing process. The NPOV policy says, "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. [...]Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process." The WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM policy elaborates on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- It says don't removed it based solely on the grounds that the material is biased. But it can be removed on the grounds that it is WP:UNDUE (and subsection WP:BALASP). WP:IMPARTIAL also applies to much of this. But this is such a big and controversial topic I can't imagine we could ever get everyone to agree on what material is balanced and what telling is impartial. Springee (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- It can be removed if there are good reasons that there will never be a way to fix it. Where has anyone even tried? There are multiple approaches, and instead of giving any of them a go, we have an all-or-nothing fixation on giving this specific paragraph an up or down vote. Allowing the editing process to go forward and letting editors work out improvements is a robust process that will prove if it is or isn't unfixable. Investing confidence in the mere speculation that it can't ever be fixed before anyone has even tried... well, what does that say? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- It says don't removed it based solely on the grounds that the material is biased. But it can be removed on the grounds that it is WP:UNDUE (and subsection WP:BALASP). WP:IMPARTIAL also applies to much of this. But this is such a big and controversial topic I can't imagine we could ever get everyone to agree on what material is balanced and what telling is impartial. Springee (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. The reason the WP:BLP policy is special is that ordinarily NPOV allows for temporary bias as part of the editing process. The NPOV policy says, "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. [...]Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process." The WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM policy elaborates on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think the article seriously lacks balance because it doesn't cover, at a high level, the NRA's fundamental policy positions and why others disagree. Let's be honest, it's not that the NRA is in politics that's the problem, it's that, for example, the NRA is against universal back ground checks, or common sense gun laws or (fill in the blank). Much of what they do beyond that is just in support of those positions. So in the wake of the recent shooting the NRA's position on assault weapon laws has come under heavy criticizm but this article doesn't say WHY the NRA has that position in the first place. Dennis rightly mentions that if someone/I think this is a problem it's on that person/me to try to correct it. I mention this in part because I think most of our disagreements come down to weight issues. We are just having trouble agreeing on how much weight various parts of the topic should get. Springee (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
So in the wake of the recent shooting the NRA's position on assault weapon laws has come under heavy criticizm but this article doesn't say WHY the NRA has that position in the first place
The NRA says why they have that position every time they open their mouth: because they believe people have an absolute RIGHT to own weapons. Recently they have not been willing to allow any exceptions to that right, often citing a slippery slope argument: Ban one type of assault rifles and the next thing you know the FBI will be breaking down your door to take away your handgun. Basically, it is because they have a very literalist and absolute position on the Second Amendment. If our article doesn't already make that clear, it should. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)- Actually it's not a very absolute position on the Second Amendment. The NRA may no longer be supporting gun control against blacks as described at the above paragraph, and even sawed-off shotguns are back in the courts again, but you don't hear a peep out of them about our right to make fireworks and rockets and recreational bombs even though those kinds of "arms" are as American as the Fourth of July used to be. If the Second Amendment were interpreted as broadly as some of the others it would have been used to strike down the drug laws entirely, and then we wouldn't even have a violent country. I admit it would be hard to find secondary sources talking about this, but let's not imagine the NRA position is anything near extreme. Wnt (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Post close discussion
@MrX:, The closing doesn't say the material should be kept rather that there wasn't a consensus for the exact text. Second, there is no reason or excuse for the excessive citations used in the section. Finally, the last bit of material is historic rather than contemporary and thus questionable for the section. If nothing else the excess citations should be removed since they just clutter the article. We can debate the last bit of material. Springee (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Springee: Actually it says "Consensus here is for inclusion of the material in some form". I disagree that the number of cites creates clutter, and they aid readers in deeper research and they establish due weight. As a compromise, what if we convert the groups of four or more into list cites?- MrX 🖋 12:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Grouping may be a good way to handle the WP:overcite problem. We should verify the citations actually add the article vs are just extras added to claim weight. The material discussing historic vs recent events will have to be discussed as well. That's hard to do on the phone but I wanted to reply to your effort towards compromise. It is noted and appreciated. Springee (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is WP:OVERCITE with so many reference basically trying to establish false notability, something Snoog has had a problem with for a long time. For further reading please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, specifically "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." It is not the purpose of citations to be a further reading or a see also section. As for the RFC close, note the "some form" in the quote you listed and "What to trim or change needs to be the subject of further discussion, and potentially a new RFC if this can not be agreed upon on the talk page." Which is certainly not yup this and this text only. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:OVERCITE is an essay—the opinion of a few editors. It's one that I and other editors don't entirely agree with. I've proposed a compromise and other ideas are certainly welcome.- MrX 🖋 11:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is an essay but I think it makes a lot of sense. Why put in a bunch of redundant, in line citations? Also, if two sentences in a row reference the same material why cite twice? Below I offered a rewrite with comments.
Please give it a read and let comments.Oops, you already did. Springee (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)- Well, then which source or sources do you think should so, and please specify why those sources are not needed?- MrX 🖋 11:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Remember, the RfC said the topic should be included but 2/3rds of respondants weren't happy with the content as is. We don't have a default or baseline version of the text. Below I proposed an edit that includes sufficient citations to back the claims. I think the onus is on you to say why the additional citations are needed. You are welcome to propose which additional citations are needed in my edits below. Springee (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was thinking about your compromise solution a bit more. I still don't agree that we need so many citations but what about this. The big change I've made was the number citations following the first two sentences. Perhaps after the second sentence we could add a citation group that contains the additional citations that I removed from that section. It would offer the readability improvement while still keeping all the original citations. Again, I don't think they are needed but I don't want to overlook the bridge you were working to build. Springee (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note about WP:OVERCITE. Yes, it's just an essay but looking at the list of all the articles that reference it suggests it is widely cited. [[7]] Springee (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, then which source or sources do you think should so, and please specify why those sources are not needed?- MrX 🖋 11:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is an essay but I think it makes a lot of sense. Why put in a bunch of redundant, in line citations? Also, if two sentences in a row reference the same material why cite twice? Below I offered a rewrite with comments.
- WP:OVERCITE is an essay—the opinion of a few editors. It's one that I and other editors don't entirely agree with. I've proposed a compromise and other ideas are certainly welcome.- MrX 🖋 11:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Follow up The above RfC was initiated after previous discussions which should be considered with the above [[8]]
The material that was recently added per the RfC above as something to work from is quoted below
- The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans.[1][2][3][4] Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners.[1][5][6][7][8][3][9][10][11] The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias.[1] Others have argued that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement.[12][2] The NRA came under criticism from some of its own members and other gun rights advocates in June 2017 for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer at a traffic stop.[11][13][5] Castile had a valid firearm permit, informed the police officer about his gun, and was subsequently fatally shot by the police officer when he allegedly attempted to retrieve his wallet.[11][14] According to The Washington Post, the NRA had typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting.[11] Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners, noting that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by racial minorities.[15][16][17]
The Adam Winkler historical racism material wasn't always part of the section and was a stand alone section for a while [[9]]. Springee (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- My opinions: Lots of sloppy copy edit work in that section. First, the Adam Winkler section was and probably should be pulled out as a separate section again. As written above it makes it sound like the NRA was always discriminating against African Americans and specifically mentions Italians, not African Americans. We can also debate how much weight should be given to the single editor but that's another matter. At least the text and section heading need to be changed so it's clear this isn't just "discrimination against blacks". The rest of the section wasn't too bad other than WAY too many unneeded citations. As was mentioned above, excess citations is sometimes a false way to establish weight. Since we have agreed to include the topic, we don't need to load it down with redundant citations. The first sentence has 4 citations claiming the NRA has come under criticism for not supporting minority gun owners in recent times. Per WP:OVERCITE two is sufficient since we aren't debating that claim. The next sentence has a block of 9 (!!!!) citations. Again, we don't need that many. The three strongest are more than sufficient. This is especially true since many are redundant. TO be honest, we could take perhaps the three most general of that 9 and use them to support both the first and second sentences. Of those 9 the ones that are Castile specific should be moved to the next sentence that talks about Castile. There is simply no reason other than sloppy copy editing to have so many redundant citations. Here is what the section could be with no loss of content.
- The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving minority gun owners.[1][2][3] The criticisms were highlighted after the June 2017 police shooting of Philando Castile. Castile, an African American, had a valid firearm permit and informed the officer of his gun and was subsequently fatally shot by the officer when he attempted to retrieve his wallet.[11][18] According to The Washington Post, the NRA had typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting.[11] The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias.[1] Others have argued that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement.[19][2] Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy for minority gun owners. Winkler cites the NRA's promotion of gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s targeting groups such as Italian immigrants and during the social unrest of the 1960 targeting militant groups such as the Black Panthers.[15][20][17]
Same content but in more compact form. Redundant calls to the same sources are reduced/eliminated and the historic vs modern material are separated as they were earlier. Springee (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe that this content should stay in:
- Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners, noting that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by racial minorities.
- This is an expert opinion by a notable individual and puts the discussion into context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Same spot it was when added to the article: [10]. I don't see a need to put this elsewhere. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Given that it's talking about historical vs contemporary events I would suggest a separate section as you did a few months back.[[11]] It's not something I feel that strongly about unless we get other material talking about the motivations/politics behind those previous laws/events. Any issues with the rest? Springee (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Same spot it was when added to the article: [10]. I don't see a need to put this elsewhere. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Springee edit warred to remove cites and complained about my single revert sufficient to get me blocked. I urge caution by all editors moving forward on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, it wan't the revert you got you blocked, it was your edit summary. So yes, choose your words cautiously so you don't cast aspersions upon another good-faith editor or their edits. --NeilN talk to me 13:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with K.e.coffman's view about the Winkler material. I don't unless it's expanded, it doesn't need its own section. It is related to the rest of the material about African-Americans. It could actually be moved to the top of that section, but it would ave to be reworded a bit.- MrX 🖋 11:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Springee edit warred to remove cites and complained about my single revert sufficient to get me blocked. I urge caution by all editors moving forward on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need to read The Atlantic article more critically. It's talking about gun control laws and their use against minorities. It does not say that when the NRA supported gun control laws in the 1920s and 1930s they were targeting African Americans. Our article text does say that which isn't what Winkler said. If we are going to cite the comments of Winkler then we should be clear that he isn't saying the NRA only targeted AA's but that they, according to Winkler, also targeted other minorities including Italians. We should be true to the source. Springee (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- But the section we're discussing has nothing to do with Italians. We're not writing an analysis of Winkler's views; we are citing his views about the NRA insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Isn't the objective of this discussion to see how we can improve that specific topic?- MrX 🖋 15:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Then the Winkler material, or at least the 1920s and 1930s part of it should not be included in the section since Winkler makes it clear that was related to immigrants such as Italians. Only the material about the Black Panthers can be included in which case we need to make sure the cited articles are clear in linking the NRA's actions to the laws past. That link isn't as strong in the Atlantic article when we look at the 1960s. This is part of the reason why editors were rejecting this particular material earlier. It's not well tied in with the section header. It would be better saved for a section about the NRA's involvement with previous gun control laws. Springee (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- But the section we're discussing has nothing to do with Italians. We're not writing an analysis of Winkler's views; we are citing his views about the NRA insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Isn't the objective of this discussion to see how we can improve that specific topic?- MrX 🖋 15:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need to read The Atlantic article more critically. It's talking about gun control laws and their use against minorities. It does not say that when the NRA supported gun control laws in the 1920s and 1930s they were targeting African Americans. Our article text does say that which isn't what Winkler said. If we are going to cite the comments of Winkler then we should be clear that he isn't saying the NRA only targeted AA's but that they, according to Winkler, also targeted other minorities including Italians. We should be true to the source. Springee (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'll with User:MrX and [[User:User:K.e.coffman's assessments. As for OBERCITE - just an essay and not applicable here. Contentious claims should he supported by multiple sources. 5 or 6 good sources is a good thing here. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- The claim isn't contentious. Weight has been established via the RfC so we don't need many redundant citations to support the claims. PackMecEng felt the same way. I don't think K.e.coffman offered an opinion on the redundant citations. As a compromise we can group the redundant citations for ease of legibility. I don't agree that the Winkler material has weight (and the RfC didn't specifically say what should or shouldn't be included) but for the time I agree that local consensus says it stays. Springee (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged I agree with Springee, the claim itself does not seem contentious. But 9 sources for a single claim even by your 5 or 6 suggestion is a little to much. I personally go for 2-4 even with contentious claims. Also yes it is an essay and not a hard policy or even guideline, but that does not mean it has no value in this situation as a helpful reference. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Statements with too few references are often seen as lacking support. My opinion is that 4-6 diverse sources would be adequate, and Springee's suggestion to group the citations is a good one. All of the sources are preserved in the RfC so I'm not worried about potentially losing them.
- The historical context is appropriate in this situation. The section doesn't need to just be about contemporary issues. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Second attempt
OK, I've revised the material above. The Winkler content is merged back into the section vs being a separate section. I tried but was unable to figure out how to bundle [[13]] the extra citations so they are again absent. That said, this is an issue with WP:OVERCITE. I know some have said OVERCITE is just an essay thus we should ignore as we see fit. However, we shouldn't dismiss the essay so quickly. Starting with the Citing_sources#Bundling_citations section of the Citing Sources guideline which points readers to OVERCITE. The Citing_sources#See_also section contains both OVERCITE and wp:BOMBARD, both state that it's bad form to include redundant citations. From BOMBARD, "However, adding a reference to already verified material merely to get the reference into the article is not a good practice." and "When the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant, on the other hand, this can be seen as bombardment.". The citation guideline says we should consider both OVERCITE and BOMBARD. Both essays discourage redundant citations that add no additional support to the article. Springee (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- please stop. You just made esentially the same cite removal the third time in 3 days [14] for which you lack concensus. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- First, I didn't make the same edit as the Winkler material was not include in the earlier edit. Second, the OVERCITE issue was noted by more than just me and is in line with recommendations that come from the citation guidelines. If you feel the extra citations are needed then make a case for the individual citation. Springee (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Springee: I see you removed a whole lot of sources in spite of the push back in this discussion. I have restored some of them, leaving out three of the less important ones. I would ask that you seek consensus before removing any more sources.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX:, I hope you don't mind that I moved your comment down here. As I noted above I was trying to bundle the citations but was unable to get the syntax to work. If your only concern was the removal of the citations I would ask you to restore the text changes and then help with the citation bundling. We probably need more eyes on this since there was a strong consensus against the text as written and so far we are getting hung up on an OVERCITE issue that per guidelines should be a non issue to correct. Springee (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Minority" is not a synonym for "African-American" or "black". Your edit misrepresents the sources as a whole, and attempts to change the topic of the section. Maybe the NRA also fails for defend the gun rights of other minorities, but that a different subject. If you would like to add that material, you should do it in a new section.- MrX 🖋 14:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Winkler article specifically mentions discrimination against Italian immigrants in the 1920s. It doesn't mention discrimination against African Americans until the 1960s. Springee (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Aren't there four Winkler articles. What is the relevance of the not mentioning discrimination against African Americans until the 1960s?- MrX 🖋 16:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- There are three quoted in the article. The WashPo just says vaguely that the NRA supported "these laws". That's not much help. The article does say that the laws were in part racist but it's very vague to conclude the NRA's intent was racist. Remember the WashPo article is about gun control laws, not the NRA specifically. The New Republic had a more detailed take. Here is their discussion of the 1920s and the NRA's early involvement with gun control laws:
- Like the KKK, the NRA was also formed right after the Civil War. The organization’s first major involvement with promoting gun laws tainted by prejudice was in the 1920s and 30s. In response to urban gun violence often associated with immigrants, especially those from Italy, the NRA’s president, Karl Frederick, helped draft model legislation to restrict concealed carry of firearms in public. States, Frederick’s model law recommended, should only allow concealed carry by people with a license, and those licenses should be restricted to “suitable” people with “proper reason for carrying” a gun in public. Thanks to the NRA’s endorsement, these laws were adopted in the majority of states.
- There are three quoted in the article. The WashPo just says vaguely that the NRA supported "these laws". That's not much help. The article does say that the laws were in part racist but it's very vague to conclude the NRA's intent was racist. Remember the WashPo article is about gun control laws, not the NRA specifically. The New Republic had a more detailed take. Here is their discussion of the 1920s and the NRA's early involvement with gun control laws:
- Aren't there four Winkler articles. What is the relevance of the not mentioning discrimination against African Americans until the 1960s?- MrX 🖋 16:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Winkler article specifically mentions discrimination against Italian immigrants in the 1920s. It doesn't mention discrimination against African Americans until the 1960s. Springee (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Minority" is not a synonym for "African-American" or "black". Your edit misrepresents the sources as a whole, and attempts to change the topic of the section. Maybe the NRA also fails for defend the gun rights of other minorities, but that a different subject. If you would like to add that material, you should do it in a new section.- MrX 🖋 14:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX:, I hope you don't mind that I moved your comment down here. As I noted above I was trying to bundle the citations but was unable to get the syntax to work. If your only concern was the removal of the citations I would ask you to restore the text changes and then help with the citation bundling. We probably need more eyes on this since there was a strong consensus against the text as written and so far we are getting hung up on an OVERCITE issue that per guidelines should be a non issue to correct. Springee (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Determining who was “suitable” under these licensing schemes was left to the discretion of local law enforcement. Predictably, racial minorities and disfavored immigrants were usually deemed unsuitable, no matter how serious a threat they faced. In 1956, after his house was firebombed, Martin Luther King Jr. was turned down when he applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Montgomery, Alabama.
- Note that it doesn't talk about the NRA and the racism aimed at African Americans rather aimed more broadly. The Atlantic is again an article about gun control and racism but it doesn't really discuss the NRA until 2/3rds of the way down the article. In it's discussion of the 1920s and 1930s it doesn't mention racism at all. In that article Winkler doesn't accuse the NRA of racism until their actions in the 1960s. So right now the text is just plain wrong. It's WP:SYN. I would also note that we should include the NRA pairing with the NAACP to form an all black NRA chapter in the 1950s (Robert F Williams, [[15]],[[16]],[[17]]) This was during the 1950s 1960s time period. Springee (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Five cites in a row is perfectly fine. Do it all the time on other pages, especially to support controversial material. Time to move off this point. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- In the opinion of two editors five sequential citations is fine. In the opinion of an essay cited by WP guidelines it is not. Currently only two editors support the view that all these citations are fine. Two don't. Since the added material doesn't represent a consensus view there is no reason to act like we need to maintain it. I will open a new RfC on the edits related to this section. I have additional material to add so I'll work on the edits and see where it goes. I would hope that the editors who are opposing can offer some suggestions (credit to MrX for efforts in this direction). Springee (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Trying to get some additional eyes on the OVERCITE issue but also just trying to clean up the passage in general.
Pinging RfC involved editors: @Niteshift36:@Icewhiz:@RAF910:@Snooganssnoogans:@MelanieN:@North8000:@Miguel Escopeta:@Dennis Bratland:@Dlthewave:@Neutrality:@PackMecEng:@K.e.coffman:@MrX:@Cinteotl:@Aquillion:@NinjaRobotPirate:@Legacypac:@Ward20:@Edaham: @DrFleischman:@James J. Lambden:@Wnt: Springee (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd be inclined to let this version by MrX stand. There's clearly some pushback against further tinkering with the content. The current version is acceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:OVERCITE is just an essay and not a policy. I would be generally opposed to trimming (otherwise valid) cites from a section that has just been the focus of an WP:RFC and an extended debate related to notability; it seems likely that many readers are going to have objections similar to the opposers here and that the cites are necessary to answer that. However, I agree that a massive line of citation links is a pain. Probably the solution is just WP:BUNDLING most of the citations. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. For the short term, leave any footnotes that are otherwise valid in the article as long as there are major unresolved content and article structure disputes among editors. Kick the can down the road on that. But once the major disputes die down, it will then become necessary to remove the redundancies. The main question is: Is this footnote here to help the reader? Or is it here because of a dispute between two editors? Keep the ones that serve the reader. Those that were put there by Editor A to convince Editor B about some dispute should be left on the talk page in the discussion between Editors A and B. If there are still more than 3 or 4 footnotes at the end of a sentence and the reader needs all of them, then bundle as many as you can. If there is a footnote that is cited in multiple places in an article, and it is also cited in a bundle of 4+ citations, then it's OK to repeat it. It adds a bit to the clutter at the bottom of the article, but it minimizes the clutter in the body where it counts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Here are some additional sources and information that could flesh out the NRA's position on racism etc. It clearly is not a simplistic case of the NRA being racist. In 1957 the NRA and president of the Monroe, NC NAACP Robert F Williams formed an all black NRA chapter called the Black Armed Guard that was credited with protecting locals from Klan activities in the area.[[18]][[19]]. So the NRA was supportive of one group but supported laws that negatively impacted legal gun ownership by the members of the Black Panther Party. In recent times we have the NRA's minority outreach [[20]] and the founder of Black Guns Matter Maj Toure who states, "The NRA is not a whites-only organization. Are there a lot of white males in the NRA? Yes, but it’s time we break that narrative. It’s not even about getting people to join organizations like this one. We want to get people involved in self-defense, in shooting sports, in Second Amendment conversations.". [[21]] "There is a stereotype that the NRA and the gun-rights movements is just a bunch of old, white guys and racist rednecks who don't want us around and don't want you part of the culture. You've been lied to. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do we as NRA members want you all, we are begging you to come in." [[22]] (Yes, Daily Mail but I think it would be accurate for a direct quote). Toure supports the NRA.[23]] We should also note that the NRA is trying to reach out to black and other minority gun owners [[24]]. That last article reiterated that the NRA's Castile reaction was likely based on fear of alienating law enforcement vs actual racism. Anyway, while we wait for the community to weigh in on the SYN and OVERCITE issues in the current text we can at least start suggesting improvements with the material above. Springee (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think we'd be well served by focusing on actual policies rather than essays. I would argue that neither OVERCITE nor BOMBARD provide coverage for bulk removal of relevant citations to reliable sources.
- I think the previous version of the "Lack of advocacy" section and Springee's version [25] both have problems. For example, in the last sentence of both, it's unclear whether it was the NRA that targeted minorities, or the gun laws that targeted minorities. I don't think either is WP:SYN, but both are unclear.
- Though either version could be fixed, I think the current version [26] is a better starting place. Cinteotl (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think you make a good point about the lack of clarity in the Winkler material. Most of what I read on the supporting articles say the gun laws were at least in part racist. It then was implied that the NRA supported the laws thus they were racist. It seems like a rather weak accusation against the NRA, hence part of why I was against including the material in the first place. I don't think you have made a good case as to why OVERCITE and BOMBARD don't apply. The most obvious example is the Castile citations. No one is claiming that the NRA wasn't slow to comment so why so many citations? Either way, just above I've suggested additional material so we can at least try to add more context to the section. Springee (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Springee: I'm a bit confused. You have been advocating reducing the number of citations, but two posts ago, you advocate adding more citations. FYI, Reason.com and The Daily Mail are not reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any RSN consensus that Reason Magazine (Reason.com) isn't a RS. The last map of media reliability I saw put it in the same category as The Atlantic, a reliable source with well argued points of view (Found it faster than I thought I would [[27]].). Also consider the content it's being used to support which is historical fact in nature. The Daily Mail I agree is normally not but in this case is only being used to provide a direct quote, not interpretation of facts (hence what I previously said). Yes, I've been advocating removal of redundant citations. Here I'm advocating adding more content with supporting citations. That is a very significant difference. Springee (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Springee: I'm a bit confused. You have been advocating reducing the number of citations, but two posts ago, you advocate adding more citations. FYI, Reason.com and The Daily Mail are not reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think you make a good point about the lack of clarity in the Winkler material. Most of what I read on the supporting articles say the gun laws were at least in part racist. It then was implied that the NRA supported the laws thus they were racist. It seems like a rather weak accusation against the NRA, hence part of why I was against including the material in the first place. I don't think you have made a good case as to why OVERCITE and BOMBARD don't apply. The most obvious example is the Castile citations. No one is claiming that the NRA wasn't slow to comment so why so many citations? Either way, just above I've suggested additional material so we can at least try to add more context to the section. Springee (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- The New Republic citation [28] supports the claims that (1) A model gun control law which the NRA’s president, Karl Frederick, helped draft was "tainted by prejudice" against "racial minorities and disfavored immigrants," and (2) The Gun Control Act of 1968, for which the NRA took credit, was about "controlling blacks," and was "motivated by racism." I'd say these are substantial accusations. There is a citation offering a different perspective here [29].
- Regarding the OVERCITE and BOMBARD essays -- you're the one who seeks to use them to justify removing citations from the article, so the onus is on you to make the case. I believe the citations should remain until the outstanding content and structure issues are resolved. At that point, we can revisit the topic.
- Regarding the sources you found to flesh-out the NRA's position on racism: They're a good start. I was able to find quite a few sources discussing NRA racism (for example [30]), so it shouldn't be hard to fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Since this is a generalization of the existing section, we should probably rename it to "Racism." Cinteotl (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Just in reply, I agree (and previously highlighted) what you said about the New Republic source [[31]]. It's why I'm concerns about SYN in the article as posted. The first quote was from the discussion of the pre-WW2 laws and the critical part was that it was not targeted at just African Americans. The current Wiki article text implies that (hence SYN). My edits were an attempt to make it clear this wasn't a narrowly targeted law and it was focus more on mob and organized crime related issues. The 1960s law was clearly tied to the NRA in that article.
- I've repeatedly explained the issue with OVERCITE and the fact that we have redundant citations that add no additional support to the claims in the article. That said, you and Dennis Bratland are correct that if we don't have stable text then they can reasonably be left in place as a work in progress. Once the text is stable we can revisit cleaning the citation mess.
- I would be OK with expanding the scope. I'm reluctant to use the word "racism" because in political context its very binary. 1950s KKK racism isn't nearly the same thing as "racism" because someone was insensitive to minority views or due to subconscious/inadvertent biases. The MediaMatters article is an op-ed and doesn't offer strong support for the claims. It would be worth following them up but I don't think that article, as is, should be considered RS. BTW, I think the NRA's efforts at minority outreach should also be included in this section (hence why I don't want to use "racism" in the title). Even if the NRA hasn't succeeded, it's clear the NRA is making efforts and wants a more diverse member base. Springee (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- The reason "1950s KKK racism" existed is because it was normalized by ostensibly mainstream and respectable voices like today's NRA or Fox News or Donald Trump. There is a direct line between racist dog whistles in an NRA video and a white supremacist terrorist driving a car into a crowd of people. When we talk about how "lone wolf" terrorists are radicalized by ISIS or Al Qaeda, there is little disagreement, even among white nationalists, about how this works. But some in the US pretend that white nationalist terrorism is somehow different. It's not different; it's the same. The way terrorists of the 1850s or 1950s or 2010s are radicalized is exactly the same. Very little has changed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- That wasn't my point. My point was that "racism" is the description used for very deliberate acts and mild indifference or self interest (avoiding a lower income neighborhood out of fear, real or imagined, of crime). It lacks gradation. Per NOTFORUM I'll leave the other part on the table. Springee (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I was addressing. Racism is not merely deliberate acts. Overt crimes are supported by deniable winks and dog whistles. Overt racist crimes are caused by structural racism, and structural racism is built on a foundation of subtle racism. The idea that a gradation places a group that cultivates racist attitudes but washes their hands of the acts themselves outside the category of "racist" is false. Indeed, the most important element of racism is subtle encouragement and toleration by the mainstream. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- That wasn't my point. My point was that "racism" is the description used for very deliberate acts and mild indifference or self interest (avoiding a lower income neighborhood out of fear, real or imagined, of crime). It lacks gradation. Per NOTFORUM I'll leave the other part on the table. Springee (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- The reason "1950s KKK racism" existed is because it was normalized by ostensibly mainstream and respectable voices like today's NRA or Fox News or Donald Trump. There is a direct line between racist dog whistles in an NRA video and a white supremacist terrorist driving a car into a crowd of people. When we talk about how "lone wolf" terrorists are radicalized by ISIS or Al Qaeda, there is little disagreement, even among white nationalists, about how this works. But some in the US pretend that white nationalist terrorism is somehow different. It's not different; it's the same. The way terrorists of the 1850s or 1950s or 2010s are radicalized is exactly the same. Very little has changed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The assertion above that "racial minorities" is not another name for mainly African Americans, especially when written alongside "immigrants", is misguided. The NRA was not targeting laws that would make it harder for Koreans to carry guns. Racism is racism be it separate water fountains, segregated schools , or gun control laws that made it easy for white police to keep black citizens from carrying guns. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are you referring to MrX's statement a ways up? Winkler did say the laws supported by the NRA in the 1920s and 1930s were used to exclude unsuitable people from gun ownership. "Determining who was “suitable” under these licensing schemes was left to the discretion of local law enforcement. Predictably, racial minorities and disfavored immigrants were usually deemed unsuitable, no matter how serious a threat they faced. " I would agree that "racial minorities"!=African American in all cases but in many cases. The Winkler source didn't say the 1920s, 1930s legislation was solely targeted at African Americans so we shouldn't either. Springee (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
2nd try - section break 2
- I attempted a rewrite here of the paragraph here [32]. I did not remove any citations or alter the meaning. I removed redundancy, for example, the previous version contained: "The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans" and "Critics say that the NRA [...] has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners" which essentially say the same thing. I also put the pro-law-enforcement argument directly before Castile and put Winkler in his own paragraph. I will have to read the sources there before I form an opinion but I hope this is helpful in the meantime. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Snooganssnoogans:, This is an area of active discussion. If you can't explain why you think the current version is better don't revert. Keep in mind the RfC said consensus is against the current text. I see JJL's text as an improvement. Springee (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Snooganssnoogans: Please specify your objections. Your complaint "not an improvement" is impossible to engage. The version you restored repeats essentially the same the complaint four times:
- "The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans"
- "Critics say that the NRA [...] has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners"
- "The NRA came under criticism [...] for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile"
- "According to The Washington Post, the NRA [...] stayed silent on the Castile shooting"
- How is that a service to the reader? James J. Lambden (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Snooganssnoogans: Please specify your objections. Your complaint "not an improvement" is impossible to engage. The version you restored repeats essentially the same the complaint four times:
- I've restored @James J. Lambden:'s edits. The RfC closed with consensus that the text as written was not a final form. JJL's edits read more cleanly, don't remove any citations nor change the meaning of the text. This should be a easy change. Snoogansoogans offered no actionable critique of the change nor justification for restoring text that was not viewed positively in the RfC. For that reason I've restored JJL's version of the text. Springee (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've unrestored it. The section should not start out with "Critics say..." per WP:WEASEL and grouping all of those citations together means someone will want to remove them, as has been the theme in this discussion.- MrX 🖋 11:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. The text needs improvement per the RfC. Rather than help or even offer constructive edits we've seen roadblocks. The critics say can easily be fixed without reverting the rest of the improvements. The concern regarding overcite is a red herring. Bundling has all ready been suggested and if the citations are redundant than their removal is no loss to the reader. Springee (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree it needs improvement. I tried myself, but its difficult to convey this fairly complex issue in just a few words. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant:
.The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners
— Current Text- We should try to find away to introduce the subject in a brief summary. Perhaps:
The NRA has been criticized as routinely defending white gun owners' gun rights while remaining silent, or offering muted and delayed responses, when African-American gun owners' gun rights are involved.
— Proposed- Thoughts? - MrX 🖋 11:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. The text needs improvement per the RfC. Rather than help or even offer constructive edits we've seen roadblocks. The critics say can easily be fixed without reverting the rest of the improvements. The concern regarding overcite is a red herring. Bundling has all ready been suggested and if the citations are redundant than their removal is no loss to the reader. Springee (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've unrestored it. The section should not start out with "Critics say..." per WP:WEASEL and grouping all of those citations together means someone will want to remove them, as has been the theme in this discussion.- MrX 🖋 11:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- MrX, sorry for being snippy earlier and thank you for the text suggestions. I'm not sure I like either of those because they contrast white vs black. Is the intent of the section how the NRA responds to African American gun rights (vs all others) or how it responds to Caucasian gun rights (vs all others). As written it implies that black and white are the entire spectrum. Meanwhile our Winkler source specifically talks about the NRA supporting legislation that was targeting Italian immigrants among others. If we want the section to be about AA gun rights and the NRA then we shouldn't contrast it with just whites. BTW, I think part of this section should cover the NRA's attempts at outreach with, based on the sources I've found (I think I've added most to this thread) mixed results. This actually ties in because a number of the articles mention that the NRA is trying to reach out but their efforts are hampered by things like the Castile incident and a perception of the NRA being only for old white men. Springee (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Had someone rephrased my "Critics say..." I would not have objected. My goal was to remove redundancy and improve readability not to moderate any claims. I share Springee's concerns but in terms of incremental improvement I would consider my edit with MrX's proposed text progress. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have made another edit for readability here [33]. Are there any objections? I removed "overly zealous" because it was not in the source [34]. The source, by the way, could be used to expand the article. For example it asserts regarding the NRA's support for law enforcement that "this wasn’t always the case. Back in the 1990s, the NRA was sharply and very publicly critical of aggressive police tactics, at least at the federal level." I am concerned that the article is classified as opinion but wonder whether Radley Balko satisfies the "expert" exception. His 2016 book The Rise of the Warrior Cop is thought-provoking whatever your politics. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- As a general comment on how we phrase criticism or opinions, we should try to avoid any of the synonyms for said, per WP:SAID. Instead of "X argued that" just say "X said". "Others argue that..." should be changed to "Others say that..." (And if you remove the word that, it says exactly the same thing with one less word). "Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is..." should be "Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, said there is..." I'd probably make it even tighter and more specific by, and use less punctuation by writing "UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler said the NRA favored gun control that was 'used for racist purposes' in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s, with the intent of taking guns away from Black Americans." It's inaccurate to say that Winkler "said there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy". Winkler did not say "lack of advocacy". He said the NRA is " intimately involved " in gun control "used for racist purposes" and that the NRA promoted laws that were tainted with racism." Another point that Winkler has repeated in the three citations given is that the NRA is a latecomer to gun rights advocacy, and that it was the Black Panthers who pioneered the modern gun rights moment, in spite of the NRA. We ought to mention that. Also per WP:SAID, "noting that" should be changed to "and that" or just "and".
"According to The Washington Post, the NRA had..." might be considered neutral, but it's unnecessarily wordy. You can convey exactly the same thing by saying "The Washington Post said the NRA had..." But in this case, I'd probably write "Avi Selk of The Washington Post said..." because it's not clear if this article is the WaPo editorial position.
We should try harder to avoid passive voice, and in this case we should not lable anyone as a "critic of the NRA" unless that is an established fact. Avi Selk's article says NRA members have complained about the response to the Castille killing. These members are probably best characterized as "NRA supporters" (if we must characterize them at all). I have often said that "Wikipedia did X and I think Wikipedia should have done Y". That doesn't make me a "Wikipedia critic". At least, characterizing me as primarily a Wikipedia critic is misleading. I'm primarily a Wikipedia contributor, and supporter, though I take issue with some Wikipedia decisions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the style suggestions. I will review the Winkler sources before commenting on substance. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have qualms with Balko. His existence (notability) relies solely on ensuring that his claims of "militarized police" never goes away. He (and Peter Kraska) get quoted a lot because they're the two main agenda warriors in a small field. Creating controversy is in his best interest in terms of sales and trying to stay relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the style suggestions. I will review the Winkler sources before commenting on substance. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The consensus is to include the material stating that NRA operates gun safety and training programs supported by reliable secondary sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following material noting the NRA operates gun safety and training courses was removed from the NRA article's section entitled, "Safety and sporting programs".
- The NRA sponsors a range of programs about firearm safety for children and adults, including a program for school-age children, the NRA's "Eddie Eagle". The organization issues credentials and trains firearm instructors.[21]
As quoted above the material self cites the NRA.
- Should the material be included in the article (No=Oppose/Yes=Support/Yes with modification)?
Material removal here [[35]] (also includes removal of material not related to this RfC).
Springee (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d e "Dallas Shootings Underscore NRA Hypocrisy, Critics Say". usnews.com.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ a b c d Beckett, Lois (2016-07-10). "Philando Castile's killing puts NRA's gun rights mission at a crossroads". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ a b c "Why African-Americans are gun-shy about the NRA". myajc. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ Eligon, John; Robles, Frances (2016-07-08). "Police Shootings Highlight Unease Among Black Gun Owners". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-12-05.
- ^ a b CNN, Deena Zaru,. "Activists accuse NRA of racism for silence over Philando Castile". CNN. Retrieved 2017-12-03.
{{cite news}}
:|last=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Newton, Creede. "Gun control's racist past and present". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2017-12-03.
- ^ "NRA offers tepid comment on police shooting of Minnesota man". POLITICO. Retrieved 2017-12-03.
- ^ "For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue". mcclatchydc. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ After the Castile Verdict, Some Ask: Where is The NRA?, retrieved 2017-12-06
- ^ Slayton, Robert (2016-07-12). "The NRA Is Racist". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-12-05.
- ^ a b c d e f "Some gun owners are disturbed by the Philando Castile verdict. The NRA is silent". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-06-21.
- ^ "Opinion | How the NRA's allegiance to cops undermines its credibility on gun rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Valentine, Matt. "How the NRA conquered Washington and abandoned gun owners like me". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2017-06-21.
- ^ "What the police officer who shot Philando Castile said about the shooting". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ a b "Gun Control Is "Racist"?". New Republic. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ Winkler, Adam. "The Secret History of Guns". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ a b Winkler, Adam (2016-07-15). "The right to bear arms has mostly been for white people". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ "What the police officer who shot Philando Castile said about the shooting". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ "Opinion | How the NRA's allegiance to cops undermines its credibility on gun rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Winkler, Adam. "The Secret History of Guns". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-12-06.
- ^ "Education & Training". National Rifle Association HQ. 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2013.
Recent discussion Talk:National_Rifle_Association#Primary_sources and Talk:National_Rifle_Association#ABOUTSELF Springee (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Survey - safety programs
- Oppose. Not unless there is coverage by independent secondary RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is a lot of coverage by third party sources. Have you looked for any of it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion The material has been in the article for ~ 5 years in almost it's current form [[36]]. The material in general has existed in the article since at least 2006 [[37]]. This means there is a strong historical consensus for inclusion. The material as written was removed for WP:RS - self cite. However, per WP:ABOUTSELF (a section of a WP policy) significant activities of the article subject can be included, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities.". Both training and education appear on the home page pull down menu of the organization's home page. This makes it clear this is one of the NRA's primary public functions. Arguments against related to WP:weight need to be balanced against consensus for inclusion for the past 14 years, almost since the article's inception. Arguments that we shouldn't include self promotional material seem questionable. Training and safety education aren't inherently self promotional and the removed statements also aren't promotional. Springee (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support Fairly non-controversial fact here. Not seeing the issue with citing the NRA for services they offer. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support NRA is well-known for their education and training programs. By removing this information it will appear to many folks that we are punishing NRA in the wake of the Florida school shooting, i.e., a knee-jerk liberal attack. I am not saying that was the motivation, just how it will appear. The bottom line is that we are not a political organization. We are an encyclopedia which strives to report "just the facts, Ma'am--just the facts." Here is a reference[1] for when we (hopefully) restore the sentence. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- User:Markworthen, please leave your talking points at the door. If the NRA is "well-known for their education and training programs", it shouldn't be too hard to find secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I did find secondary sourcing, which I posted above. I'm not sure what you mean about "talking points". I'm pro-gun-control; worked for Hillary's campaign; and a registered Democrat. I'm just talking about perception and, most importantly, the importance of objectivity. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- You did--here it is, for those who don't have it on the shelf. I invite anyone to read that entry and judge whether it is neutral and provides a fair overview of the NRA's activities; it is so obviously not-neutral that its language here would be flagged immediately. It makes me think twice about ABC-CLIO. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. How about this one?
- ”The NRA was incorporated in 1871 to provide firearms training and promote shooting sports.”
- Defining Who You Are By What You’re Not: Organizational Disidentification and The National Rifle Association, Kimberly D. Elsbach • C. B. Bhattacharya, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 2001, Vol. 12, No. 4, July–August 2001, pp. 393–413. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that the Eddie Eagle program is a NRA safety program and has more than enough coverage for it's own article, I'd say it's really a matter of picking a couple to cite here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose content and support removal. It is indeed self-sourced and promotional; this kind of stuff is removed all over the place, regardless of what the organization is. That it's been in here for a while just means that it's sad we don't have more editors in this area who apply our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. My opposition is only weak if it's a sentence or two somewhere down in the article devoted to NRA activity (provided we use secondary sources, a sentence somewhere should be fine; additional sourcing and moving the sentence to further down in the article rather than the lead would satisfy this part of my opposition); but Strong Oppose to any mention in the lead. Also, procedural objection to this RFC in that a huge part of the debate is whether it should be in the lead. We could find additional sources to put a sentence or two somewhere in the article in a section devoted to NRA activities, but I don't believe the sourcing exists to support the idea that it's high-profile enough for the lead. I request that people also mention their positions on that aspect in particular. Obviously, I strongly feel that even if we do include it, it shouldn't be in the lead, and given that this RFC doesn't even mention that, it's not going to resolve that aspect (unless Springee means to concede that point and agree that it doesn't belong in the lead? I don't know how else to interpret the complete lack of a mention of that aspect.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support restoral of content which has a 5 year consensus. People: we are building an encyclopedia. This is exactly the kind of supporting background information our readers expect to find not just in NRA but in any organizational article. To say that this mention of a training program is "unduly self-serving" is preposterous. How can I say this? Because it's been in the article for five years. No violation of SELFPUB. Now what I really want to know is can we figure out a way to add the Charleton Heston video "cold dead hands" with some kind of Fair Use rationale? – Lionel(talk) 11:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose content and support removal - Per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:UNDUE. If his program were well-known, it would be well-documented in third-party sources; it's not. Stating in Wikipedia's voice that the NRA "sponsors a range of programs" is particularly promotional. There is no such thing as a "five year consensus". Silent consensus is only valid until someone challenges the existing content. I think readers looking for information about the NRA's gun safety program might wonder how supporting selling high-power semi-automatic rifles to mentally ill children, without a proper background check, contributes to gun safely. Come on folks, of course this material is controversial! WP:NPOV requires that articles proportionally reflect the universe of available reliable sources about the subject. In that universe, the NRA's promotion material is a hydrogen molecule floating somewhere in a supercluster.- MrX 🖋 13:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Where did the NRA ever advocate selling rifles to children (mentally ill or otherwise)? I'd love to see that source.....but I suspect you'll not only refuse to provide the source but avoid removing the hyperbole as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Niteshift36: here you go: NRA Rewrites Fairy Tales With More Firearms, Less Bloodshed, NPR. Quote: "Adding guns to the world of the Brothers Grimm drastically reduces death rates, according to a study — well, OK, according to a couple of stories published by the NRA. (...) ...the trendline is clear: In the NRA's reimagined fairy tales, putting rifles in the hands of children creates a safer world." --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you failed. What you linked to is an article about fan fiction written on a NRA related Facebook page by people who aren't representatives of the NRA. And, even with that, it still doesn't advocate selling rifles to children. And yes, that matters. In most states, youth are allowed to hunt under the age of 18, but can't purchase one. According to most gun control groups, they're not trying to intefere with hunting. Thus, they don't have an issue with a youth under 18 being in possession of a firearm. Fail. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out the words K.e.coffman chose to elide from his quotation: "So far, there are only two data points. And they're imaginary. But the trendline is clear..." And it's also worth pointing out the final line in the cited article: "But the NRA is pretty clear about its own intent: The stories are tagged "Fun Friday" and "Just for fun" on the site." Let's not misrepresent what's going on here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Niteshift36:: I’m not following: the article says, “The NRA Family site published its first reimagined fairy tale — "Little Red Riding Hood (Has A Gun)" in January, and followed up with "Hansel and Gretel (Have Guns)" last week. The links are to www.nrafamily.org/, www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/1/13/little-red-riding-hood-has-a-gun/ etc. It’s not
a NRA related Facebook page
. Or are you saying that “NRA Family” is not part of the NRA? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- The site may be run by the NRA, but the material is not. It's like writing fan fiction on a Star Wars site. LucasFilm may run the site, but they didn't generate the content. Even with that, it still doesn't advocate selling rifles to children. And yes, that matters. In most states, youth are allowed to hunt under the age of 18, but can't purchase one. According to most gun control groups, they're not trying to interfere with hunting. Thus, they don't have an issue with a youth under 18 being in possession of a firearm. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The site may be run by the NRA, but the material is not
- huh? NRA published the materials on its website and it was, understandably, covered as "NRA promoting guns to children". In fact, that was the search term that led me to the NPR article. Several other outlets covered these "fairytales" in a similar fashion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- The material was authored by a non-NRA blogger. You are still massively failing. Why? Because the question you are trying to answer is NOT "can a youth be allowed to shoot a rifle". It was "Where did the NRA ever advocate selling rifles to children (mentally ill or otherwise)? I will repeat, for the THIRD TIME, that most states allow youths to legally hunt and since the gun control lobby claims that they're not trying to interfere with hunting, the mere act of having a youth shoot a rifle isn't the issue. Will you finally see this glaring inconsistency in your answers? Or does it need a fourth repitition? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Niteshift36 that is just misleading. The NRA published the material, and yes people write stuff not organizations. The "NRA promoting guns to children" is different than "the NRA promoting gun sales to children" but not by much. The law also forbid alcohol and tobacco sales to children and most people would agree publishing fairy tales about kids drinking and smoking as a good thing on a "family" site is not appropriate. Publishing children's stories where kids are using guns against other characters (maybe not shooting the charactors but threatening to) is definately promoting guns to children. Kids tend to kill themselves and others when handling guns - its a public safety issue. Lawn darts are prohibited in the US as dangerous and swimming pools must have fences while the NRA promotes guns to children. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, it's not misleading. Many websites "publish" the contents of guests contributors and that doesn't make it the official policy of their organization. Do you honestly need me to give you 10 examples of that? No, promoting the SALE of guns to children and the SAFE USE of guns by youth are very, very different. A 16-year-old in my state can drive a car, but a 16-year-old in my state cannot OWN a car or BUY a car. Once again, in many states, youth can legally begin hunting at age 12. Most gun control advocates claim they're not trying to interfere with hunting. The fact that both of you have ignored that is noticeable. Do kids tend to kill themselves and others when handling guns? Some do, but the vast majority do not, especially not those with proper training. Of course there is an exception from time to time, so spare me the obvious. I'm speaking of the majority, not the small minority. BTW, not all locations require fences around pools. Those are typically local or state regulations, not a federal one. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Niteshift36 that is just misleading. The NRA published the material, and yes people write stuff not organizations. The "NRA promoting guns to children" is different than "the NRA promoting gun sales to children" but not by much. The law also forbid alcohol and tobacco sales to children and most people would agree publishing fairy tales about kids drinking and smoking as a good thing on a "family" site is not appropriate. Publishing children's stories where kids are using guns against other characters (maybe not shooting the charactors but threatening to) is definately promoting guns to children. Kids tend to kill themselves and others when handling guns - its a public safety issue. Lawn darts are prohibited in the US as dangerous and swimming pools must have fences while the NRA promotes guns to children. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- That appears to be an (not "the") official NRA site, with the NRA itself as the contact info. It's just as much the NRA as the main website. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's like saying every letter to the editor printed on a newspaper site is the opinion of the editorial board. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I'd expect this to be non-controversial for neutral editors. If we can devote an entire article to the NFL Foundation (one sourced almost entirely from primary sources), despite the NFL's failings, I don't see where a paragraph here would hurt. The NRA actually teaches firearm safety. This isn't based on the anonymous allegation of someone "familiar with" the program. The Eddie Eagle program has its own article. If the safety program of an org is able to pass GNG on its own, how it's not relevant to the org overall is a valid question. NRA instructor certifications are recognized by many states, my own included, to provide the legally required training for concealed carry licenses. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Support I would have thought this to be noncontroversial. One of the primary functions of the NRA is to provide training and safety programs, whether it's Eddie Eagle, or the NRA training that many states require before granting a license. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I came here from the note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. Strong Oppose to including it in the lead section, per WP:DUE. Support for including information about these programs later in the article, with sourcing to the NRA for the basic existence of the programs, but with secondary sources for the context, significance, and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support The U.S. Justice System: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 source backs it up. It's a significant enough part of the group's activities that it can be included in the lead.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Inclusion should be fairly non-controversial. It was for many, many years, at least until the NRA became the favorite "hated" organization of a large group of biased editors. Calling this material "self-serving" is a strong disservice to readers who come to Wikipedia hoping for a balanced presentation. NRA Certified Instructor requirements exist in many state laws, for teaching acceptable Concealed Carry classes, as well as even by the Boy Scouts of America, who require NRA Certified Instructors and Range Safety Officers (RSOs) for the rifle and shotgun shooting merit badges for boy scouts. Doesn't it make sense that parents who come to Wikipedia to learn about the NRA safety information for the Instructors and RSOs required to teach their son's merit badge classes actually see some information on this very point? Seems obvious, and it should be non-controversial. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support The precise wording is never an issue. Any content that is added today is subject to change tomorrow. Regardless of exactly what tone and content is chosen, the topic must be covered. Particularly since we have Eddie Eagle, a separate article that stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted due to lack of notability. There is no question that there is a large quantity of secondary sourcing about NRA training and the Eagle thingy. There's nothing partisan about mentioning this topic. Some perceive the existence of training like this as evidence that the NRA is more than just a political pressure group, and proof that the NRA is actively involved in spreading useful knowledge and awareness. Others see it as a means to indoctrinate children and infiltrate public schools, or as a ploy to distract from the question of the proliferation of guns and define any problem as a defect in children that can be corrected through education. Some say training prevents children from handling guns without adult permission, others say there is evidence that this kind of training increases the chance that a child will pick up a gun they find. And so on. When you have so much on both sides, there's no way to avoid going over it in an article about the NRA. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Include. Per Niteshift36. Eddit Eagle has its own article, complete with plenty of independent sourcing. Fine, our content here was sourced to the NRA's website, which wasn't ideal. So fix it. Gasp did I just call out Niteshift for making a strong argument? Impossible! (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I know how you feel. Every once in a while, I find myself agreeing with someone I rarely do as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support, add secondary sources and expand our coverage of the NRA's significant role in gun safety education along with any notable criticism. Education programs run by advocacy groups deserve a certain amount of scrutiny to ensure that they are not thinly-veiled propaganda campaigns. Article content can always be challenged, and it seems like this discussion may lead to a more well-rounded and well-sourced section. Concepts such as "long-standing" or "historical" consensus have no standing here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Include This seems pretty basic, I don't think it should be removed but if there are reliable sources that have a critical viewpoint of this that are not in the article adding those as balancing content would be preferable to removal of a basic non-controversial fact. Seraphim System (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support with modification: "According to the NRA website...". Also possible: using a secondary source, or finding a primary source stating just how much they spend on these programs. "They do because they say so" isn't enough. François Robere (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Include only with secondary sources. Fine with this concept, but not OK with citing the NRA itself to tout its own programs. Neutralitytalk 19:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support, informed of the RfC by way of the talk page of Wikiproject United States. The language proposed by Springee (talk · contribs) appears to be non-controversial and does not appear to advocate or oppose the gun safety training. As Neutrality (talk · contribs) suggest above, please find non-primary reliable sources that verify that such gun safety training programs exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Like others have said: just add some better sources. They're out there... I spent about 1 minute, and found plenty. Cinteotl (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support only with secondary sources. A toxic organization like the NRA cannot be trusted as a source for anything. Plenty of secondary sources exist, and they should used instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think the inclusion of secondary sources is going to be a given at this point but I see nothing wrong with citing the NRA as well. "A toxic organization" is an opinion only. I don't think we have any evidence that says the NRA is in anyway misleading or deceptive about it's basic offerings in this area. I think the "toxic" part (and I can understand why some people would feel that way but "controversial" would be a more neutral description) comes from the political activities the NRA engages in to support their gun rights objectives. Springee (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support (Summoned by bot) No serious editor would believe that the NRA is lying about its gun safety programs and independent sources can verify this. Rather, I worry that a partisan minority might prefer to ignore the NRA's concern for gun safety; that bias is in violation of WP:NPOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose: the disagreement above was really about whether WP:ABOUTSELF is enough of a justification for including this self-cited material. I believe that the community's efforts would have been better spent on finding reliable secondary sources, as opposed to launching this RfC.
- I'm also concerned about the statement by the OP that
"...since we can find citations that support the existence of the material but none as direct as the NRA's links"
. In contrast, in another article, Springee removed a statement with the following edit summary: "VPC is a anti-gun group and a self published source thus the addition violates RS and WEIGHT". We could equally say that "NRAis a pro-gun group and a self-published source..." etc. This selective application of guidelines is concerning. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)- The easy answer there would be this is the NRA article, so citing the org themselves can be acceptable here. The dif you link is in the Smith & Wesson article and a non-RS issue. Not a apples to apples comparison. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion - that NRA does safety programs and Eddie Eagle in particular is an objective fact simply stated for years and widely available WP:RS. I can hardly believe it takes a RFC to say it exists and belongs -- the removal was unwarrented. Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion - How can you exclude safety and training that is a huge part of what the NRA does? I think self-descriptive sources should be considered reliable unless there is specific information to the contrary. Not including would mean you couldn't consider corporate financials or a host of other documents that are frequently included in many articles. In this case however, there is plenty of supporting documentation. The NRA is closely associated with the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP, an organization established by the US government) for managing official matches, publishing rules, and ensuring safety at the matches. CMP is, in part, dedicated to safety and training programs and the NRA is the largest single supporter of these matches. In addition, there is objective physical evidence of the NRA programs such as the Eddie Eagle workbooks, Eddie Eagle training videos, and training manuals available for download from the NRA website. The NRA developed and managed a comprehensive instructor program recognized by the Department of Defense and many law enforcement agencies for training and safety. Removing this section is like removing a reference to a wall visible in photographs because there is no secondary source specifically mentioning the wall. TXGRunner (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
- Support. This is plainly not very controversial, and I think the NRA can be trusted for a minor fact like this one. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:SPS --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You do know we have third party sources, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I do know and since I'm not the only one who has responded to something in here, I'm not sure why you find it so unusual. Regardless, it's worth pointing out that simnply opposing per SPS, when we've already agreed that other sources exist seemed like it needed pointed out. The discussion had evolved beyond the inital, premature RfC question.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support inclusion - The purpose of the NRA in the beginning, from my understanding, was to train people in proper gun etiquette and safety. It's basically the purpose of the organization, they purport to have close to 100,000 instructors capable of delivering safety talks to groups about guns. It's no small wonder the timing of this RfC considering the developments of American politics, but if we are to be objective it's fairly apparent that this is what they do. There looks to be other editors here who have brought to light better references. While a primary reference in this case is acceptable in my mind (it's uncontroversial.. until emotion kicks in supposedly) we can now bolster the statement with references given by Markworthen. I also fully agree with what Dennis Bratland wrote above. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I just spotted some Wikilawyering nightmare on WP:MED claiming that saying NRA's program was a "safety program" needed a medical source. There must be some kind of over the top POV policy abuse going on here. Obviously you talk about the safety program, obviously you document it with secondary sources to avoid an overly self-serving representation of it, and obviously you document it with the primary source so readers can read about it from the horse's mouth. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) Oppose unless and until someone can demonstrate that the programs mentioned above have received substantive coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. And this applies to any program run by any organisation. This is a no-brainer, folks; why are we even discussing this? Any organisation, from the NRA to the Communist Part of the USA, engages in activities to promote itself, and is likely to discuss those activities on its website/other media it produces. By relying upon those sources, we are aiding in their promotion. Vanamonde (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support because, as gun safety training and education is a huge part of what the NRA does and has always done, this is a no-brainier. Except for the "the NRA is evil and supports the murder of children!" crowd, of course. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion - safety programs
The removal was contested and thus requires consensus for removal (vs consensus for inclusion). Springee (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- BRD should apply but consensus required is not in effect for this article as far as I can tell. PackMecEng (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree. Your rationale (and several others) cite "strong consensus" for this material as their main argument. If the RFC fails to produce strong consensus, those arguments are invalid and must be disregarded, correct? By your own wording, consensus must be required for inclusion (since you're basing your entire argument on the fact that the material is supported by consensus.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Springee: the question "Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?" does not have a strong connection to the diff being discussed. The content was removed on the grounds of being self-cited and promotional, not due to an opposition to the idea that the article should discuss NRA's "gun safety and training programs". I suggest the question be modified as follows: "Should self-cited material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?"
You might also include the prior discussions, for background: Talk:National_Rifle_Association#Primary_sources and Talk:National_Rifle_Association#ABOUTSELF. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I thought about including the self-cite as part of the question but decided against since we can find citations that support the existence of the material but none as direct as the NRA's links. Also since WP:ABOUTSELF applies it isn't a requirement. I will add the link to the background discussion, thanks for pointing that out. Springee (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:ABOUTSELF, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, (...), so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving...". Devoting substantial real estate to NRA's statements about itself, in this already quite a long article, would be "unduly self-serving".
- Also, I'm not quite following: "
...since we can find citations that support the existence of the material but none as direct as the NRA's links
". Why don't we cite all NRA activities to NRA's web site, since they provide the most "direct" links (?). Could you elaborate on that? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)- I think it's opinion that the material is self serving. Is it self serving when we write an article about the GAP and say they sell the following types of clothing? The key part is "unduly" self serving. Since the material was around for 14 years why do you think it's unduly self serving? We also aren't talking about substantial material here. This is two sentences and one isn't very long. That is about as little weight as one can get and still include the material. To answer your question about direct links, use the CT news story. Through it we can tell that NRA training was recognized by the state and for political reasons there is a debate about removing that recognition. Well that does show the NRA offers training but it's not very direct. Here is another reference that shows the NRA offers training [[38]]] (page 22 if it doesn't come through). The author talks about the training as something that helps the NRA's public standing as a type of community service. Perhaps we need to turn the question around. How can we describe the scope of the NRA if we exclude their training and safety functions? It seems like that would be a case to WP:IAR (also a policy) Springee (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if it is opinion that the material is self-serving (of course it is: it is an attempt to show the organization is doing something good or useful) it is certainly "opinion" that the material is worth including without secondary verification. And describing the NRA's scope without those functions, well, that's not hard: it's pretty clear, from the sources, that the NRA is here to protect gun ownership. Again, we remove that content, and should remove that content, all over the place. We shouldn't list the clothes that GAP sells unless sources talk about that. I wrote up Sissy-Boy years ago, and did not list their clothes (or, by the way, their image and clientele) because I couldn't verify it. Go through my edit history and you'll find hundreds, possibly thousands of edits where I removed for instance product information because it lacked proper secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Some good example pages would be Southern Poverty Law Center or the NAACP that are self cited all over the place. It is not uncommon or against policy to do so. Heck WP:ABOUTSELF spells is out fairly clearly on that subject. It is no more self-serving than listing a product or service offered by any organisation. It also does not seem to meet WP:PROMOTIONAL, back to the SPLC example, we list legal representation and educational materials as their products. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if it is opinion that the material is self-serving (of course it is: it is an attempt to show the organization is doing something good or useful) it is certainly "opinion" that the material is worth including without secondary verification. And describing the NRA's scope without those functions, well, that's not hard: it's pretty clear, from the sources, that the NRA is here to protect gun ownership. Again, we remove that content, and should remove that content, all over the place. We shouldn't list the clothes that GAP sells unless sources talk about that. I wrote up Sissy-Boy years ago, and did not list their clothes (or, by the way, their image and clientele) because I couldn't verify it. Go through my edit history and you'll find hundreds, possibly thousands of edits where I removed for instance product information because it lacked proper secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's opinion that the material is self serving. Is it self serving when we write an article about the GAP and say they sell the following types of clothing? The key part is "unduly" self serving. Since the material was around for 14 years why do you think it's unduly self serving? We also aren't talking about substantial material here. This is two sentences and one isn't very long. That is about as little weight as one can get and still include the material. To answer your question about direct links, use the CT news story. Through it we can tell that NRA training was recognized by the state and for political reasons there is a debate about removing that recognition. Well that does show the NRA offers training but it's not very direct. Here is another reference that shows the NRA offers training [[38]]] (page 22 if it doesn't come through). The author talks about the training as something that helps the NRA's public standing as a type of community service. Perhaps we need to turn the question around. How can we describe the scope of the NRA if we exclude their training and safety functions? It seems like that would be a case to WP:IAR (also a policy) Springee (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Springee:: Are you conceding the point that this material does not belong in the lead, regardless of the outcome of this RFC (ie. regardless of whether we conclude that it belongs somewhere else in the article?) As I mentioned in my !vote, that was a major aspect of the debate above, at least from my position, and given that the RFC makes no mention of it, my interpretation is that you're conceding that point. I want to make it absolutely clear, either way, that this RFC as-worded cannot produce an outcome that would keep the material in the lead (since you didn't mention that aspect of the debate at all in your description, it isn't what the RFC addresses.) If you still want to put it in the lead specifically, you need to create a new RFC that mentions that aspect explicitly. Your description gives the impression that you've conceded that point and will now settle for a sentence or two anywhere in the article rather than the previous mention in the lead. Is my reading correct? --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aquillion, the composition of the lead is described by MOS:LEAD. Generally, if a topic has its own section, and it is WP:DUE, then mentioning it in the lead should be considered. – Lionel(talk) 10:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Not quote; "its own section" is not the important part (after all, a very small section does not belong in the lead.) Things need to be given equivalent weight in the lead according to the weight they get in the article (for example, compare the size of the 'criticism' section to the amount of text it gets in the lead; anything that gets that much text should have a section of about the same size.) In this case, safety training is not even mentioned anywhere in the article, and the glaring and clear-cut violation of WP:LEAD that this represents has been one of my main objections to it. Since there is no section devoted to safety programs in particular, and since you're now familiar with WP:LEAD (which unequivocally would not support placing it there in the article's current form), I assume you agree that it is inappropriate to place this material in the lead? I notice you didn't assert they could go there in your !vote. Again, my objection is that people are sort of dancing around whether it goes in there or not; the fact that nobody seems willing to unequivocally say it belongs there (and the fact that Springee seems to have conceded the point by making an RFC that makes no mention of that aspect) leads me to believe that most people, even those who think it belongs somewhere in the artice, are in agreement that the lead is not the appropriate place for it. Unless you think you could write a section devoted to safety programs in particular of size comparable to the criticism section, the lobbying section, and so on? --Aquillion (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aquillion, the composition of the lead is described by MOS:LEAD. Generally, if a topic has its own section, and it is WP:DUE, then mentioning it in the lead should be considered. – Lionel(talk) 10:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The bald wording "The NRA sponsors a range of programs about firearm safety", sourced to the NRA itself, falls foul of WP:SELFPUB, specifically the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
. The problem with the wording is that it gives the impression to the casual reader that these programs actually contribute to firearms safety. That hidden assumption which it promotes has no basis in fact, and a reliable source, Jackman, Geoffrey A.; Farah, Mirna M.; Kellermann, Arthur L.; Simon, Harold K. (June 2001). "Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?". Pediatrics. 107 (6). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1247–1250. doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1247. notes that "[although the Eddie Eagle program] has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good." Without such addressing independent criticism, the self-published source becomes self-serving and fails WP:V. --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You do know we've identified third party sources, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- So have I. The one I quote above is an independent secondary source. So is this policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
- Dowd, MD; Sege, RD (November 2012). "Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population". Pediatrics. 130 (5): e1416–23. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481. PMID 23080412.
Gun avoidance programs are designed to educate children as a way of reducing firearm injury (eg, Eddie Eagle, STAR); however, several evaluation studies have demonstrated that such programs do not prevent risk behaviors.
- Dowd, MD; Sege, RD (November 2012). "Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population". Pediatrics. 130 (5): e1416–23. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481. PMID 23080412.
- That's a lot better quality than the self-published stuff and press releases that you seem to want to base your text on. So have you read my concerns about the "unduly-self-serving" nature of the NRA as a source yet? --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since I haven't proposed any text or expressed a support for press releases etc, I question if you are either responding to the right editor.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- So have I. The one I quote above is an independent secondary source. So is this policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Secondary sources
This has received some coverage in secondary sources. The first two are quite critical but also have some good background information.
Kansas bill would require schools offering gun safety use NRA program
Florida shooting suspect was on school rifle team that got NRA grant
Local NRA Chapter highlights importance of gun safety
–dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Steven Harmon Wilson, ed. (2012). "National Rifle Association". The U.S. justice system : an encyclopedia. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 627. ISBN 9781598843040. OCLC 773670169.
Since its inception in 1871, the National Rifle Association (NRA) ... has been the world's premier firearms education organization.
Additional sources: PBS Independent Lens high level description
Section from a book on the gun debate introducing the NRA
References to the various training/education programs
Since many states recognize NRA training programs as part of the process to get a carry permit it would be good to have a list of those states. The NRA publishes such information but a 3rd party or 3rd party reference + NRA list would be better. Springee (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- This RfC is unwarranted and misleading. An editor removed the information because it was not reliably sourced, not because they thought it should not be mentioned. Furthermore, RfCs should not be started before there is discussion on the talk page. TFD (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Media Matters blog as a source
@MrX: inserted this material here, I reverted here saying "a Media Matters blog and tampa blog are not RS for this", and he reinserted here stating "Excuse me but Salon is not Media Matters, and it IS a reliable source. The Tampa Bay Times is NOT a blog, and it has won 12 Pulitzer prizes. We can take it to WP:RSN if you like.". If you look at the Salon source you cited here, it clearly states it is a re-post from Media Matters. The original article which is a word for word copy is here, is clearly stated as a blog. We do not cite blogs as fact. The Tampa Bay Times article is here, part of their "The Buzz" section, which again is listed in their blog section here. So again, we are using a highly bias blog source, Media Matters, and another Tampa blog source as statements of fact which is no good. PackMecEng (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Are you serious? One section up, you are arguing to include promotional material referenced to the subject's publications. Here, the WP:INDEPENDENT sources are Salon and the Tampa Bay Times, both reputable publications—the latter highly-reputable. On top of that, Salon lays out reasoning that is unassailable. Many publications syndicate content from other sources. We even have a policy link: WP:USEBYOTHERS. We can take this to the fine folks at WP:RSN if you like.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are citing a Salon article that is a word for word re-post of a blog. Period, full stop. It is also established the Tampa article is a blog, again both are not in question. Are Salon, Media Matters, and Tampa Bay Times news sections reliable? Of course. Are their blog sections reliable? Heck no. Please self revert and respect WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Blogs can absolutely be used as sources, but were not really talking about blogs are we? Salon and the The Tampa Bay Times are news sources. Let's just take it to RSN and see if other experienced editors think the sources are useable for the content in question. - MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I posted as RSN [39]. PackMecEng (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Blogs can absolutely be used as sources, but were not really talking about blogs are we? Salon and the The Tampa Bay Times are news sources. Let's just take it to RSN and see if other experienced editors think the sources are useable for the content in question. - MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are citing a Salon article that is a word for word re-post of a blog. Period, full stop. It is also established the Tampa article is a blog, again both are not in question. Are Salon, Media Matters, and Tampa Bay Times news sections reliable? Of course. Are their blog sections reliable? Heck no. Please self revert and respect WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- The claim for oldest civil rights group in the US has been debated before. Based on the previous discussion I think it's reasonable to say the NRA claims it and some sources recognize it while others do not. I'm mixed about the Salon reprint of a MM opinion/blog post. However, I would say it's reasonable for use in this case. The TB article isn't since it doesn't make any arguments for or against the NRA's position on the matter. I would suggest dropping the TBTimes citation and change the sentence from a rejection in Wikipedia voice to an attributed counter argument. Springee (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it's fine to say that the NRA makes that claim, but we have to include other noteworthy views as well. The Tampa Bay Times says the NAACP is the oldest civil right organization. They are not stating an opinion, and their reputation for fact checking is rather exemplary.- MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree that Salon, by reprinting it is offering a level of endorsement. That doesn't mean we treat Salon as correct just a reliable view that disagrees. Remember that the NRA isn't the only source that says the NRA is the oldest. The TBTimes article isn't a RS for this particular claim simply because it wasn't addressing the claim. The article offhandedly said the NAACP was the oldest in context of a discussion of teachers with guns. That can't reasonably be seen as refuting the NRA's claim (though it does support that other organizations are also recognized as oldest). However, to that end we could include this article Smithsonian Institute article [[40]]. It doesn't mention the NRA but it does talk about the NAACP. Also, keep in mind the dispute isn't one of basic facts but of how to interpret agreed upon facts. The NRA is the older organization but didn't get into the civil rights part until later so now it's subjective if the important part is when the organization was founded or when it was involved in civil rights. That should really be reserved for articles that actually discuss the difference. Personally, I would accept the Salon article as sufficient to show the claim is disputed and why. Springee (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The sources that say that the NRA is the oldest obviously got it straight from NRA talking points. One source attributed it to La Pierre. As it stands now, we present both views. If you like we can attribute the NAD as the oldest, and NAACP as second oldest to Media Matters, and NAACP as the oldest to the Pulitzer Prize winning Tampa Bay Times. That way, the disputed views are all attributed. Awkward, but workable.- MrX 🖋 03:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Pulitzer prize winning....for something that has nothing to do with this discussion. That's like claiming everything Michael Moore says is correct because he won an Oscar for documentaries or that everything Jayson Blair write was true because it was in a "Pulitzer prize winning" newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The sources that say that the NRA is the oldest obviously got it straight from NRA talking points. One source attributed it to La Pierre. As it stands now, we present both views. If you like we can attribute the NAD as the oldest, and NAACP as second oldest to Media Matters, and NAACP as the oldest to the Pulitzer Prize winning Tampa Bay Times. That way, the disputed views are all attributed. Awkward, but workable.- MrX 🖋 03:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree that Salon, by reprinting it is offering a level of endorsement. That doesn't mean we treat Salon as correct just a reliable view that disagrees. Remember that the NRA isn't the only source that says the NRA is the oldest. The TBTimes article isn't a RS for this particular claim simply because it wasn't addressing the claim. The article offhandedly said the NAACP was the oldest in context of a discussion of teachers with guns. That can't reasonably be seen as refuting the NRA's claim (though it does support that other organizations are also recognized as oldest). However, to that end we could include this article Smithsonian Institute article [[40]]. It doesn't mention the NRA but it does talk about the NAACP. Also, keep in mind the dispute isn't one of basic facts but of how to interpret agreed upon facts. The NRA is the older organization but didn't get into the civil rights part until later so now it's subjective if the important part is when the organization was founded or when it was involved in civil rights. That should really be reserved for articles that actually discuss the difference. Personally, I would accept the Salon article as sufficient to show the claim is disputed and why. Springee (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it's fine to say that the NRA makes that claim, but we have to include other noteworthy views as well. The Tampa Bay Times says the NAACP is the oldest civil right organization. They are not stating an opinion, and their reputation for fact checking is rather exemplary.- MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- What about this:
- The NRA has been called the "the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization" and "one of the largest and best-funded lobbying organizations" in the United States by The Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues and Ashok Sharma.[164][165] The title of oldest civil rights organization is disputed. While the NRA was founded in (year here) it did not pursue a gun rights agenda until 1934. The National Association for the Deaf (NAD, founded ____ ) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP, founded ____) originated as civil rights organizations [Salon and/or other sources directly addressing the matter].
- I feel like that reads a bit better and makes the case why the claim is disputed more directly. Springee (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I could live with something like that.- MrX 🖋 04:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure, looking back at the Media Matters source they don't even state when the NRA became a civil rights group. But "according to an analysis by the National Association for the Deaf" which is rather suspect. I didn't know the National Association for the Deaf was a strong reliable source on when the NRA became a civil rights group. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Change "The NRA has been called" to "The NRA calls itself". The National Association for the Deaf is a very good source for how long they have been around. They are also pretty good at comparing dates. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The recent change was good but I would suggest we stick with "NRA has been called" or perhaps "the NRA and others have called it...". "The NRA calls itself..." implies that no one else accepts the claim and no one else refers to the it that way. Since others do, and our sources say as much, we should use the more general phrasing. I'm open to suggestions for exact phrasing. If nothing comes up I will restore that bit of phrasing. Springee (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
So since RSN has basically wrapped up basically saying find better sources. At least the Slate article should be removed for obvious reasons. the Tampa Bay Times article makes no mention of NAD, only mentions NAACP in passing and the opinions of the article should be attributed to the author, not in Wikipedia's voice. I will remove Slate and change the rest to conform to the source in the next day or two unless there are objections. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's a misrepresentation of the RSN discussion. There was no consensus to consider Salon an unreliable source for this content. If anything, the opposite is true.- MrX 🖋 14:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- No it is not, no one supported the Media Matters sources and at best the Tampa source was noted to be a newsblog. Which would require in text attribution. PackMecEng (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since this has resurfaced, I'm not ok with the current article text for two reasons. First, the NRA isn't the only source for it's claim. My speculation is the NRA is the source but others have also made the claim so, as I noted above the text should not imply through omission that the NRA is the soul claimant. Second, the TB Times article is not reliable for the claim is being used to support. I don't think it hurts the article to remove it as a source for the counter claim. I assume a better source, not linked to the MM source could be found. Springee (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would be fine with just killing the whole addition in general. I was trying to make a compromise since neither of the sources are in the ball park of good sources especially with how they were used. PackMecEng (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- We have a couple of options. We can attribute everything; or we can generalize by saying some sources say the the NRA is the oldest, but other sources say that the NAD and NAACP are older. I prefer the later. If we want to remove all claims of the NRA being the oldest, that would work also.- MrX 🖋 15:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, there are quite a few books that state that the NAACP is the oldest civil right org in the US: [41] - MrX 🖋 15:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be synth to use those book sources since they do not mention the NRA? PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- If the text said something like, "other sources acknowledge the NAACP as the oldest..." it wouldn't be SYN in my opinion. Springee (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that cite the book sources in this article; only that they add veracity to the view that the NRA is not the oldest.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just having a hard time finding reliable sources that make the connection. I see plenty calling the NAACP or the NRA the oldest but none making the connection between the two. Which would go against "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- If those making the comparison don't view firearm ownership as a civil right, they probably won't make the link. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Right. We don't need to form a conclusion. We simply need to say something like: "Some sources view the NRA as the oldest. Some sources view the NAACP as the oldest."- MrX 🖋 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I like that sentence. Many sources, for example the TB Times, are likely making the claim as common knowledge WP:CK and without any analysis as to the validity of the NRA's claim. The TB Times is acknowledging that they (the author) think that the NAACP is the oldest without actually supporting the claim. I think the section on "controversial claims" would apply here only because we have some level of disagreement and few sources are critically reviewing the claim. Don't get me wrong, I suspect when presented with what facts we have a majority would say the NAACP is the older "civil rights" group (I would fall off the fence in that direction as well). I do get MrX's concern with saying "acknowledge". I think MrX's suggestion above offers that balance without picking sides. Springee (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I could go for something like that with proper sources I suppose. What specifically did you two have in mind? PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would prefer we use book sources in both cases, but the Tampa Bay Times would be a good supplementary source. By the way, the wording I suggested was to illustrate the proposal. I would think we could come up with slightly more interesting wording without too much effort.- MrX 🖋 14:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX:Then what is your suggestion? Leaving poorly sourced information in the article is not the answer. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would prefer we use book sources in both cases, but the Tampa Bay Times would be a good supplementary source. By the way, the wording I suggested was to illustrate the proposal. I would think we could come up with slightly more interesting wording without too much effort.- MrX 🖋 14:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I could go for something like that with proper sources I suppose. What specifically did you two have in mind? PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I like that sentence. Many sources, for example the TB Times, are likely making the claim as common knowledge WP:CK and without any analysis as to the validity of the NRA's claim. The TB Times is acknowledging that they (the author) think that the NAACP is the oldest without actually supporting the claim. I think the section on "controversial claims" would apply here only because we have some level of disagreement and few sources are critically reviewing the claim. Don't get me wrong, I suspect when presented with what facts we have a majority would say the NAACP is the older "civil rights" group (I would fall off the fence in that direction as well). I do get MrX's concern with saying "acknowledge". I think MrX's suggestion above offers that balance without picking sides. Springee (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just having a hard time finding reliable sources that make the connection. I see plenty calling the NAACP or the NRA the oldest but none making the connection between the two. Which would go against "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be synth to use those book sources since they do not mention the NRA? PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, there are quite a few books that state that the NAACP is the oldest civil right org in the US: [41] - MrX 🖋 15:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- We have a couple of options. We can attribute everything; or we can generalize by saying some sources say the the NRA is the oldest, but other sources say that the NAD and NAACP are older. I prefer the later. If we want to remove all claims of the NRA being the oldest, that would work also.- MrX 🖋 15:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would be fine with just killing the whole addition in general. I was trying to make a compromise since neither of the sources are in the ball park of good sources especially with how they were used. PackMecEng (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
No, they just are not good sources for statements of fact. Above and RSN both confirm that. Does it need an RFC next? PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, the RSN discussion does not confirm that. I'm getting a sense of deja vu here. Do you dispute that the NAACP a was civil rights organization before the NRA was?- MrX 🖋 20:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, but if we are going to state that, a usable source would be required. My comments are not for or against the content, just that the sources are not good enough. Heck if other sources are found that mention the NAACP or NAD in connection to the NRA I would add them myself. But if we are making the connection or just giving dates each were founded/became a civil rights org to imply a conclusion that is a synth and OR issue. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- You have not made a case for not using sources that we routinely use throughout Wikipedia. Verifiability is what matters.- MrX 🖋 20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- The case has been made just above by me and others as well as at RSN. Venerability is kind of the case I am making which synth and OR fall under. The blog is not applicable the way you are using it and the TB times only talks about NAD with no relation to the NRA. Us making the point that it is older without the sources making the comparison is wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: I have not heard any updates in a while, do you have anything to add? PackMecEng (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: I disagree with your analysis, and there are other sources that establish the NAACP as the oldest. This is why we should state both views, and possibly say that the NRA's claim is disputed. You seem to want to wikilawyer about types of sources and other technicalities, when there is no doubt that this content is verifiable. Your RSN venture did not yield the results you were looking for. I think it's time to move on.- MrX 🖋 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX:No RSN confirmed what several people have told you here as well. Since WP:ONUS is a thing and you are using poorly sourced content to make a point the even the opinion blogs you cited don't make, you have two options. Fix it with the sources the make the connection to the NRA you say exist but no one has found or remove it. This stonewalling is getting disruptive at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: Please link to a closing statement that supports your assertion that RSN confirmed something, and please quit calling the sources opinion blogs. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: As you well know it was not closed, but consensus can still be drawn from it regardless. Also the two sources are opinion blog sources. The TB Times expressly states it and the Slate article is a repost of a Media Matters blog that expressly states it is a blog as well. As far as sources are concerned the Slate article does not exist as it does not change or take credit for the content at all, the Slate article is the Media Matters blog. This also still does not address the onus part I brought up, it has clearly been challenged and you clearly do not have condenses for inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: I dispute your claim of consensus, as I have done repeatedly. I also dispute your assessment of the sources, which I have done repeatedly. You need to also understand that "blog" is simply a format for conveying information. It is not ever a reason for dismissing an otherwise reliable source. Further, we cannot let the NRA's dubious self-claim stand without also including verifiable information that disputes it. You seem extremely rule bound, when the goal should be to craft content that accurately reflects available sources, from a neutral point of view. Do you dispute that the NAACP has pursued civil rights longer than the NRA? - MrX 🖋 00:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: I do not necessarily dispute that the NAACP became a civil rights group before the NRA, though I have not been shown a RS that says the NRA was not a civil rights group went founded as opposed to the Slate/Media Matters cite that just throws that out there. I also agree that blogs can be reliable, I would even say the TB Times is one of those cases. I do disagree that the Slate/Media Matters one is reliable though, it's just to dubious for this situation. I would certainly be open to another source that establishes when the NRA "officially" became a civil rights org, but besides that lone Slate/Media Matters one no one else seems to be saying that directly. Have you seen any others that do? Otherwise that would also disqualify that source since they are the lone ones making that claim. PackMecEng (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: I dispute your claim of consensus, as I have done repeatedly. I also dispute your assessment of the sources, which I have done repeatedly. You need to also understand that "blog" is simply a format for conveying information. It is not ever a reason for dismissing an otherwise reliable source. Further, we cannot let the NRA's dubious self-claim stand without also including verifiable information that disputes it. You seem extremely rule bound, when the goal should be to craft content that accurately reflects available sources, from a neutral point of view. Do you dispute that the NAACP has pursued civil rights longer than the NRA? - MrX 🖋 00:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: As you well know it was not closed, but consensus can still be drawn from it regardless. Also the two sources are opinion blog sources. The TB Times expressly states it and the Slate article is a repost of a Media Matters blog that expressly states it is a blog as well. As far as sources are concerned the Slate article does not exist as it does not change or take credit for the content at all, the Slate article is the Media Matters blog. This also still does not address the onus part I brought up, it has clearly been challenged and you clearly do not have condenses for inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: Please link to a closing statement that supports your assertion that RSN confirmed something, and please quit calling the sources opinion blogs. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX:No RSN confirmed what several people have told you here as well. Since WP:ONUS is a thing and you are using poorly sourced content to make a point the even the opinion blogs you cited don't make, you have two options. Fix it with the sources the make the connection to the NRA you say exist but no one has found or remove it. This stonewalling is getting disruptive at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: I disagree with your analysis, and there are other sources that establish the NAACP as the oldest. This is why we should state both views, and possibly say that the NRA's claim is disputed. You seem to want to wikilawyer about types of sources and other technicalities, when there is no doubt that this content is verifiable. Your RSN venture did not yield the results you were looking for. I think it's time to move on.- MrX 🖋 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- You have not made a case for not using sources that we routinely use throughout Wikipedia. Verifiability is what matters.- MrX 🖋 20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, but if we are going to state that, a usable source would be required. My comments are not for or against the content, just that the sources are not good enough. Heck if other sources are found that mention the NAACP or NAD in connection to the NRA I would add them myself. But if we are making the connection or just giving dates each were founded/became a civil rights org to imply a conclusion that is a synth and OR issue. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"And in the midst of this fight over individual rights, the NRA has opposed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which actually is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States."[1] - MrX 🖋 12:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
References
- Ah cool thanks! Ill take a look at the source more in depth tonight when I get a chance. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: I still have not been able to track down a digital version of the book or head to the book store to see the context of the rest of the page. But that isn't a reason to hold it up, and no reason to believe it is not correct. Would you be good with replacing the Slate/Media Matters article with the book cite then? PackMecEng (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK PackMecEng.- MrX 🖋 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: I still have not been able to track down a digital version of the book or head to the book store to see the context of the rest of the page. But that isn't a reason to hold it up, and no reason to believe it is not correct. Would you be good with replacing the Slate/Media Matters article with the book cite then? PackMecEng (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
2016 donation list in lede
@Tomwsulcer:, I don't think the donation list is appropriate for the lede and has a few other issues. First, we have lede follows the body. We shouldn't be introducing new facts/links etc in the lede and ideally would have no citations in the lede. Second, the link text suggests this would link to a general artcile discussion of donations from the NRA to politicians over time. The text you added strangely limited the donations only to Congressional races while not mentioning the organizational aspect (often seen as more powerful than the monetary donations) and ignores involvement in local and statewide elections, not just Congress. It reads a bit like an edit intended to insert a link/citations. The actual linked article is a 2016 only list that is currently under deletion review (where it appears consensus is leaning to keep but is not strong in that direction). The link would make sense in a section talking about the 2016 election but that would beg the question, why link to the wikipedia copy of the list vs an external source. Alternatively it would make sense as a "see also" link. Absent a compeling reason to keep it in the body I would propose moving the link to "see also". Springee (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think the link is appropriate for the lead (note: It's not a list as stated by the above; it's a wikilink to a list). Are you saying that we should also have articles about NRA contributions to state and local campaigns, and link them from the lead as well? Regarding what you refer to as "organization aspects", would that be primarily advertising like the $30+million spent on the 2016 presidential race?- MrX 🖋 15:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am ok with the topic being listed in the lead, but not convinced the list of congressmen needs linked from it. I took a look at some other lobbying groups that make similar sized contributions. The articles about the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ($27 million in 2016) and the American Federation of Teachers ($33 million in 2016) don't mention their campaign contributions in the lead. The articles about the National Education Association ($29 million in 2016) and the Service Employees International Union ($39 million in 2016) do mention amounts. However, none of them link to lists of who they gave money to. So why are we treating this org differently? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- There are no lists (yet) for the other organizations. If such lists become available, then that can be added to those articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't address the difference at all. You essentially said 'because I can'. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, the link to a narrow article like that shouldn't be used to support a broad statement. It is appropriate to discuss the NRA's donations and organizing efforts at the local, state and federal levels. The lede can say it happens, the body gives the details and the links. It's one thing to wikilink to something like a definition in the lede. For example, the NRA is a Not for Profit. It's another thing to try to introduce a specific fact or citation that isn't used in the body. Remember that ideally the lede doesn't have citations. It shouldn't need them. The organizational aspects that I mentioned can be found when searching for articles that talk about the NRA's effectiveness. It's not that they have more money. In terms of political donations they are relatively small. It's that they do a good job of motivating voters [[42]]. BTW, I do think that is something the article is missing in the politics section. Springee (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Springee: the lede section should summarize what the NRA is about, what it does, and so forth. One of the things it does is that it contributes to congressional campaigns. This isn't some side issue or detail -- it is a major thing that the NRA does, and it reflects its power and influence, and readers need to know this. So all I did was add the six (6) words and contributed funds to candidates for Congress with an internal link, plus references, so what is wrong with that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- What you added was a specific detail that only applies to the 2016 election, not a general statement appropriate for the lede. If you feel the material should be added why not put it in the body with other 2016 election related material. The specific link is UNDUE in the lede. Springee (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. You have an org that's 150 years old and you're making it about a specific election. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- The 2016 election was the most recent election; when 2018 data becomes available, the list will be expanded. For me, this detail does not justify burying the important fact that the NRA contributes to Congress. As per WP:LEAD, the most important information should be included. Are you saying that NRA contributions to Congress aren't important?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- So now we're a newspaper? I'm not even disputing adding info about lobbying to the lead. But adding a wikilink to what is essentially a political hitlist, is being disputed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Lead says the most important information from the body goes in the lead. Where is this in the body? Why are you adding new citations to the lead?
- There's no information about the NRA contributing to Congress in the body of the text? If so, that violates WP:NEUTRAL and such information should be added. It is not my fault if other contributors here whitewash the body of this article in the same way that some contributors are trying to whitewash the lede section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Already making "whitewashing" claims? An hour into the discussion and AGF is out the window. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- And that circles back to my point. The material should go in the body. It isn't your fault it isn't there but that doesn't mean in goes in the lede instead of the body. Springee (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- So why am I thinking that if I do at it to the body, that people will find a way to get that information deleted? But face it -- it's important to know that the NRA contributes to congressional campaigns. Belongs in the lede, regardless of whether it was added or deleted from the body.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- There's no information about the NRA contributing to Congress in the body of the text? If so, that violates WP:NEUTRAL and such information should be added. It is not my fault if other contributors here whitewash the body of this article in the same way that some contributors are trying to whitewash the lede section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- What you added was a specific detail that only applies to the 2016 election, not a general statement appropriate for the lede. If you feel the material should be added why not put it in the body with other 2016 election related material. The specific link is UNDUE in the lede. Springee (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Springee: the lede section should summarize what the NRA is about, what it does, and so forth. One of the things it does is that it contributes to congressional campaigns. This isn't some side issue or detail -- it is a major thing that the NRA does, and it reflects its power and influence, and readers need to know this. So all I did was add the six (6) words and contributed funds to candidates for Congress with an internal link, plus references, so what is wrong with that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the lede and moved the material to the 2016 section of the lobbying section of the body. Springee (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Dana Loesch RfC
You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Offstage? Her statement that she made is talking about the event that occurred onstage. This is what she said. And it was over 5K people. I had to have a security detail to get out. I wouldn’t have been able to exit that if I did not have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming ‘Burn her!’ And I came there to talk solutions. Jake Tapper confirmed this. The Miami New Times only shows videos offstage and misleads their readers to thinking that Loesch was talking about what happened offstage. ViriiK (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
May 18 edits to intro
Waleswatcher, the material you restored doesn't actually fit in context where it was added. The NRA was not the focus of intense criticism after the Las Vegas shooting. The body of the text doesn't say the NRA was widely or intensely criticized. That is why the material was removed. Since you think it should be restored, please justify the position. Also, please note that the version prior to your edit was in place for 2 weeks and was the stable version prior to that. This means the addition needs to be justified. Springee (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Springee, "The NRA was not the focus of intense criticism after the Las Vegas shooting." I totally disagree. If I can find multiple sources that indicate the NRA was in fact strongly criticized and add them to the body, will you concede the point? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The text of the article doesn't support that and your edit is against the consensus version. The intense criticism after the FL shooting was clear. After the LV shooting the NRA came out for a bump stock ban. Springee (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- "The text of the article doesn't support that" - as I said, if I find multiple sources and put them in, would you accept that? If not, why not? " The intense criticism after the FL shooting was clear." Same after LV. " After the LV shooting the NRA came out for a bump stock ban." And that didn't satisfy their critics. "your edit is against the consensus version." Where can I find the discussion that reached consensus against mentioning LV in the lead? thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- A good measure of how much heat the NRA felt on October 3 and October 4, 2017, was that by October 5, they took the unprecedented step of supporting a ban on bump stocks. Bump fire or bump stocks had been an issue that had some discussion in the media and specifically among gun control advocates in the years leading up to the Las Vegas shooting, but not a peep from the NRA about it. Their uniform opposition to any sort of restrictions such as banning bump stocks, or related issues like large capacity magazines and other gadgets, didn't crack until Las Vegas. Their position was that the AR-15 is a sporting rifle, end of discussion. The NYT wrote in the lead paragraph of their story that it was "a rare, if small, step for a group that for years has vehemently opposed any new gun controls." It is entirely accurate to say the NRA came under intense criticism after the LV shooting. Why are we even having this discussion? There's plenty of controversial points to debate but this is not one of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- On one hand when just about anything gun related happens we can find an article critical of the NRA (frequently based on faulty logic). On the other hand, look at the vitriol directed at the NRA after the FL shooting that was certainly something different. Same with Sandy Hook. That sort of anti-NRA stuff didn't happen after the Vegas shooting. Also, if the lead is supposed to summarize the body, well the body doesn't say the NRA was subjected to such extensive criticism after Vegas. If wide spread and reliable examples like what we saw after the FL shooting can be found then we should talk about changing the body followed by the lead. Note that this shouldn't just be an article that was critical of the NRA. Alternatively, we can drop "intense" from the lead sentence in question so the lead fits the claims made in each of the referenced shootings. Springee (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- "We can find an article"? You think we have to search to find articles saying the NRA was heavily criticized in the wake of the LV shooting? It sounds to me like you simply don't like what the overwhelming majority of respectable, reliable sources have to say about the NRA. The burden is on you here to support any of the novel claims you are making here. Faulty logic? Source? Vitriol directed at the NRA after the FL shooting that was certainly something different? Source? I really dislike that you're making other editors spend so much of their time wrestling over no-brainers with you.
The burden is on you. You cite reliable sources who have made any of the assertions you make here. The sources saying they were intensely criticized after LV, and responded by caving on a long-held position, are copious. No effort is necessary to "find" them because they are at the top of every major story. Please don't demand we waste our time proving that to you. It's disruptive, and if your intent here is to force others to hand-hold you source by source just to prove to you the sky is blue, then I question your motives.
Ball is in your court. Sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The body of the text doesn't say it. The onus isn't on me to find sources for you. Also, you have to keep things in perspective, look at the anti-NRA protests after the FL shooting. Where were those after Vegas? The burden isn't on me since I'm not the one pushing to change the consensus text, that would be Waleswatcher. Why don't we removed the "intense" word, add a source that indicates the criticism after LV and call it good? Of course you could just argue consensus has shifted with 3 editors to 1. It would be a weak justification but I would accept it. Springee (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to support the series of wild claims you have made to justify your entire argument. To me it sounds like you're making it all up. As far as whether or not the body says it, so what? Why should it? Because the MOS:LEAD guideline says that is the preferred way to organize an article? The MOS organizational guidelines are not an easy tool for to delete whatever you don't like. If you want the organization to be perfect, then write the missing material in the body. Or patiently wait for someone else to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why was that directed at me? I haven't changed the text in question since 6 May. WP:ONUS states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I'm not actually pushing for a change to the article. I'm stating we should keep it as it has been for at least a few months. It was arguably 3 vs 1 in favor of the change but after Niteshift36's edit it's 3:2 in favor of the change (counting the original editor who has been silent on the change since 6 May). That isn't much of a consensus for a change. Your claim about abuse of MOS is based on the assumption that the text of the article supports that version of the lead. That hasn't been shown. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Dennis, we shouldn't try to list every event that the NRA was criticized for in the lead. Two examples where they were most heavily criticized is sufficient. It gives readers the idea that there was criticism and that it can be found later in the article. The 2 I left were incidents where the NRA received the heaviest criticism. Again, I feel like 2 is sufficient. It lets a reader know that there was more than one instance without looking like we're trying to 'name-drop' or make it look like it's less neutral. In short, my question to you would be what does adding a third do that isn't accomplished by 2? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why was that directed at me? I haven't changed the text in question since 6 May. WP:ONUS states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I'm not actually pushing for a change to the article. I'm stating we should keep it as it has been for at least a few months. It was arguably 3 vs 1 in favor of the change but after Niteshift36's edit it's 3:2 in favor of the change (counting the original editor who has been silent on the change since 6 May). That isn't much of a consensus for a change. Your claim about abuse of MOS is based on the assumption that the text of the article supports that version of the lead. That hasn't been shown. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to support the series of wild claims you have made to justify your entire argument. To me it sounds like you're making it all up. As far as whether or not the body says it, so what? Why should it? Because the MOS:LEAD guideline says that is the preferred way to organize an article? The MOS organizational guidelines are not an easy tool for to delete whatever you don't like. If you want the organization to be perfect, then write the missing material in the body. Or patiently wait for someone else to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- The body of the text doesn't say it. The onus isn't on me to find sources for you. Also, you have to keep things in perspective, look at the anti-NRA protests after the FL shooting. Where were those after Vegas? The burden isn't on me since I'm not the one pushing to change the consensus text, that would be Waleswatcher. Why don't we removed the "intense" word, add a source that indicates the criticism after LV and call it good? Of course you could just argue consensus has shifted with 3 editors to 1. It would be a weak justification but I would accept it. Springee (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- "We can find an article"? You think we have to search to find articles saying the NRA was heavily criticized in the wake of the LV shooting? It sounds to me like you simply don't like what the overwhelming majority of respectable, reliable sources have to say about the NRA. The burden is on you here to support any of the novel claims you are making here. Faulty logic? Source? Vitriol directed at the NRA after the FL shooting that was certainly something different? Source? I really dislike that you're making other editors spend so much of their time wrestling over no-brainers with you.
- On one hand when just about anything gun related happens we can find an article critical of the NRA (frequently based on faulty logic). On the other hand, look at the vitriol directed at the NRA after the FL shooting that was certainly something different. Same with Sandy Hook. That sort of anti-NRA stuff didn't happen after the Vegas shooting. Also, if the lead is supposed to summarize the body, well the body doesn't say the NRA was subjected to such extensive criticism after Vegas. If wide spread and reliable examples like what we saw after the FL shooting can be found then we should talk about changing the body followed by the lead. Note that this shouldn't just be an article that was critical of the NRA. Alternatively, we can drop "intense" from the lead sentence in question so the lead fits the claims made in each of the referenced shootings. Springee (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- A good measure of how much heat the NRA felt on October 3 and October 4, 2017, was that by October 5, they took the unprecedented step of supporting a ban on bump stocks. Bump fire or bump stocks had been an issue that had some discussion in the media and specifically among gun control advocates in the years leading up to the Las Vegas shooting, but not a peep from the NRA about it. Their uniform opposition to any sort of restrictions such as banning bump stocks, or related issues like large capacity magazines and other gadgets, didn't crack until Las Vegas. Their position was that the AR-15 is a sporting rifle, end of discussion. The NYT wrote in the lead paragraph of their story that it was "a rare, if small, step for a group that for years has vehemently opposed any new gun controls." It is entirely accurate to say the NRA came under intense criticism after the LV shooting. Why are we even having this discussion? There's plenty of controversial points to debate but this is not one of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- "The text of the article doesn't support that" - as I said, if I find multiple sources and put them in, would you accept that? If not, why not? " The intense criticism after the FL shooting was clear." Same after LV. " After the LV shooting the NRA came out for a bump stock ban." And that didn't satisfy their critics. "your edit is against the consensus version." Where can I find the discussion that reached consensus against mentioning LV in the lead? thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The text of the article doesn't support that and your edit is against the consensus version. The intense criticism after the FL shooting was clear. After the LV shooting the NRA came out for a bump stock ban. Springee (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Newly added Russia material
@Soibangla:, you recently added material related to the possible connections between the NRA, Russia and Trump[[43]]. That subject was recently covered by a RfC [[44]]. The outcome was to allow a limited amount of material, "There is consensus to include a few sentences about this issue." I think your added material reads too much as a series of damning quotes rather than an actual assessment of what happened or is alleged to have happened. Given the RfC would you mind cutting the material down? I think it would be better as just a summary of the allegations and evidence vs a series of quotes. Thanks! Springee (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Four sentences in a small paragraph would seem to meet the definition of "a few sentences". Perhaps it could be trimmed slightly, but we shouldn't leave readers in the dark for something this important.- MrX 🖋 14:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Springee's request for paring down to a brief summary as it is excessive per the consensus and fits the definition WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry quite so much about the 4 sentence length though I would take that to be longer than the RfC intended. The problem is a few of those sentences are very long and tt's currently the longest paragraph in the section. It's got at least some sourcing issues such as citing The Daily Beast and a raw pdf. It seems like the quotes were included to create a damning impression rather than a discussion of the facts. For example, why mention the NRA spent more on this election than on Romney's? In context it suggests a Russian related conspiracy rather than offering an number of rational justifications (Different political climate in 2012, less money available etc). The damning quotes method is something I've seen in the past when an editor wants to include controversial or damning material that would not be acceptable in Wiki voice. Quoting allegations doesn't make for an encyclopedic entry. If Soibangla doesn't weigh in I would suggest pinging the editors involved with the original RfC to get opinions on how to fix this. Springee (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Rather than pinging everyone and potentially making this into a big issue, why not just propose an alternative version that addresses your concerns?- MrX 🖋 14:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll take a look but to be honest I haven't been following the issue as closely as others. Thus I'm not as knowledgeable with regards to all the details that aren't in the sources provided. I am willing to give it a shot but I would suggest that those who want the material in are likely better at making suggestions. That is why I pinged Soibangla. As a first draft I would suggest we cut any material that is speculative in nature from the text, even if it comes from a source. This shouldn't be a gossip column. Springee (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Rather than pinging everyone and potentially making this into a big issue, why not just propose an alternative version that addresses your concerns?- MrX 🖋 14:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This wasn't a "limited amount". It was clearly the largest entry in the section. The line about spending $30 million on Trump is already mentioned in the section. The whole 'Torshin is connected to Putin' part is just trying to make it sound more evil, same with mentioning his charges in another country. If you want to know about Torshin, click on his name and read his BLP. I've removed them. I'll renew my question that was never answered: Has any news org aside from McClatchy independently made the claim that there even is an FBI investigation or is this still 2 anonymous people and everyone just repeating it? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Let's please not WP:REHASH the RfC. If you have an alternate proposal, can we please see it?- MrX 🖋 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- So rather than discuss it, you just add it back in speculation and a POV description. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why did you type four colons :::: instead of two ::? Fix it, then I'll respond to your comment.- MrX 🖋 17:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- So that it would be inset more than the other from Springee. First you griped about the asterisk. So I stopped just for you. Now you gripe about semicolons and even make it a condition of response. Starting to seem more like a
cry for attentionpower play than a legitimate concern. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks from here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC) - I fixed it and you still didn't respond. Makes one question, doesn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- So that it would be inset more than the other from Springee. First you griped about the asterisk. So I stopped just for you. Now you gripe about semicolons and even make it a condition of response. Starting to seem more like a
- MrX, you restored a sentence that seems to be largely speculative in nature. I understand the NRA isn't subject to BLP protection but we shouldn't include speculations and the like. How about an alternative means to fixing this. What information should this section contain? Let's not focus on the current text but instead ask, what should be in the section and go from there. Since you were the initial champion of the material at the RfC would you start off? Personally I would cut the material down to one sentence saying a report has claimed the NRA is being investigated for X and preferably a second sentence saying if sources feel the NRA was a willing or unwitting participant. That part is important since I'm sure people would judge the NRA based on if they knowingly vs unknowingly participated (or if that information is unknown). That's something the current text leaves out and seems to be significant to me. Springee (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty important to explain Torshin's connections with Trump, the NRA, the Russian government, and Taganskaya, exactly as the main sources do. I don't see that being speculative, since they are facts specifically highlighted by the sources. One sentence is not nearly sufficient to cover this, and creating WP:FALSEBALANCE would not be a way forward. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Let's rephrase that incorrect statement. My edit didn't cut it to "one sentence". It removed one (very long) sentence and a shorter one that you agree could go. I left 2 very long sentences. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- But do any of the sources say the NRA was a knowing participant or that something actually happened vs it's currently speculation/under investigation? Anyway, I think if we can't get an agreement in the next day or so I think the best option is pinging the RfC participants. Yes, it will be painful but it hopefully will result in a definitive answer. As I look into this a bit more it seems that we have a very partisan subject and even partisan material (note the PDF in question is from Feistein's government website, anything but a friend of the NRA). Yeah, I'm not OK with the text as is but I don't currently have a better suggestion. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- No one disputes the NRA took big donations from a Russian and spent big money for Trump. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- No one disputes that the NRA spent money on the Trump campaign? I guess. What counts as "big money" is debatable when the NRA's spending is compared to other groups, including some anti-gun groups. Do we have a source that says how much Russian money the NRA spent? The only one I've seen is $2500 but I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the whole of it. At this point I'm pretty sure we are having the same discussion that was had at the time of the RfC. Springee (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- No one disputes the NRA took big donations from a Russian and spent big money for Trump. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty important to explain Torshin's connections with Trump, the NRA, the Russian government, and Taganskaya, exactly as the main sources do. I don't see that being speculative, since they are facts specifically highlighted by the sources. One sentence is not nearly sufficient to cover this, and creating WP:FALSEBALANCE would not be a way forward. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Many many many RS point out the spending for Trump was 3x spending in the Romney campaign or any other campaign and thst Torshin is connented to Putin. Stop trying to whitewash this by hassling any editor that adds anything questionable about NRA activities. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse editors of whitewashing. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- LP, what you call "big money" is less than the Service Employees International Union gave Democrats in that same cycle, less than the American Federation of Teachers gave Democrats that cycle and about the same as the National Education Assn and Laborers Union gave Democrats in that cycle. So really, how notable is that amount of money in Presidential campaigns? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Springee, it does seem like you consistently object only to material that is unflattering to the NRA. While "whitewashing" is a bit saucy, the underlying observation is well-founded from where I sit.- MrX 🖋 17:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why did you only put 2 semicolons after a response from me? Applying your standard, it's fair to say that you are pushing an anti-NRA view since you've only added or supported information that puts them in a negative light. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- lol. I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Springee. See WP:THREAD for more information.- MrX 🖋 18:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- For someone as sarcastic as you are, you apparently don't recognize it very well. But hey, whatever makes you feel superior. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- lol. I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Springee. See WP:THREAD for more information.- MrX 🖋 18:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why did you only put 2 semicolons after a response from me? Applying your standard, it's fair to say that you are pushing an anti-NRA view since you've only added or supported information that puts them in a negative light. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The newly added material is perfectly fine. Substantial RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering a question that really isn't being asked. Nobody is disputing that there's coverage by RS's. We're discussing UNDUE and NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- The material is neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:POV (Of course, due weight is actually part of the NPOV policy). I documented 25 sources for this material, far more than what is available for about 80% of the material in this article. Due weight has been more than adequately established.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Having a number of sources don't magically erase UNDUE. The TOPIC isn't being disputed in this particular discussion, but the AMOUNT of text is. The edit you reverted left more information than it removed. You already misrepresented it before (claiming I left one sentence). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- The material is neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:POV (Of course, due weight is actually part of the NPOV policy). I documented 25 sources for this material, far more than what is available for about 80% of the material in this article. Due weight has been more than adequately established.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Many sources discussing something supports us giving it weight. Yes $30 million dollars is a lot of money from one lobby group for a single campaign especially when it is way more then they spent on previous campaigns (says the RS) . Sorry I don't take editor opinions on what is a lot of money too seriously. Big union agragate donations to hundreds of Dems is 100% expected. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, you don't take editor opinions on what is a lot of money, yet you alone get to say "big money" and can't be chaleenged on it? Typical of you. And no, many sources is not what gives it weight. MANY sources discuss many things every day. Most newsworthy items aren't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I mean if you want to get technical they gave 11.4 million to the Trump campaign and spent 19.8 million on anti Hillary stuffs.[45] Which itself got somewhere around 957.6 million.[46] Not a ton in the grand scheam of things. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Many sources discussing something supports us giving it weight. Yes $30 million dollars is a lot of money from one lobby group for a single campaign especially when it is way more then they spent on previous campaigns (says the RS) . Sorry I don't take editor opinions on what is a lot of money too seriously. Big union agragate donations to hundreds of Dems is 100% expected. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's always wise to refer back to what the applicable policy says: "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." I don't think that 131 (less than 2% of the artcle text) words is excessive when we have at least 25 sources to draw upon.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- But what you are actually fighting here is 1 sentence. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Interested editors should try to improve the sourcing on the rest of the page instead of trying to trim a well sourced little section that is remotely potentially negative for the NRA. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Edit break, NRA-Russia discussion
Having looked at the recent edit there are a couple of problems with it that haven't been already discussed. First, the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't release the report we quote in the article. That was released by Democrats on the committee and thus should not be treated as bipartisan. The Daily Beast leaf out the fact that the "report" is just a statement from the involved Democrats. The commettee actually released 2000 documents but not the one in our article. Thus that sentence needs to be changed as it's factually in error. [[47]]. The WSJ had an article noting many of the issues with the current story.[[48]] The biggest issue is simply that their is basically nothing concrete in the whole thing. We really should be clear on that point and it would be proper to make sure one of the "few" sentences is that disclaimer. Just a bit from the WSJ:
- A few days later, the same two McClatchy reporters were out with this: “NRA lawyer expressed concerns about group’s Russia ties, investigators told.” It again cited two anonymous sources claiming Congress was investigating Ms. Mitchell’s worries that the NRA had been “channeling Russia funds into the 2016 elections to help Donald Trump.” Ms. Mitchell tells me she told McClatchy before publication that this was false, that she has spoken to no one about the NRA’s actions in 2016, and that she believes the entire NRA-Russia story line is preposterous. She asked the reporters to explain to whom she supposedly said this, when and in what context. They couldn’t, but ran the story anyway. Ms. Mitchell calls it “the quintessential definition of fake news.” Ms. Mitchell notes that other news outlets backed off the story after she denied it, with one reporter agreeing in email that he did not want to “be associated with some left-wing conspiracy.” A McClatchy investigative editor emailed me that since the “central assertion” of the story was that “congressional investigators are looking at information” that Ms. Mitchell said something, it didn’t matter if she had denied it. The editor noted that McClatchy had published her denial, and corrected its headline to reflect that she is not a current NRA lawyer. Fusion GPS did not respond to a request for comment.
We also have NR critical of the narrative.[[49]], [[50]], [[51]] Anyway, the current text has errors and bad sourcing so it needs to be corrected for those reasons alone. Springee (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nice work, Springee. You're right, this all needs to be rectified. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's problematic that you're unable to distinguish an op-ed from an article ("Don't see evidence the WSJ considers this an editorial"). Not only is the content of the "article" utterly idiotic (as most WSJ op-eds are) but it's labelled "opinion" at the top. That's an op-ed by Kimberley Strassel, a pro-Trump partisan who frequently posts falsehoods and conspiracy theories related to the Russia investigation and America's institutions. Why are you citing non-RS (op-ed in NR, the Moonie Times and the Federalist) in this talk? Is it really that hard to stick to actual RS and facts to defend your view? This is not the first time that you bring op-eds and blatant non-RS to these kinds of discussions. Throwing all these non-RS into the discussions does nothing to help us find a consensus or acceptable compromise, they just divert the discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- That the report is from Senate Dems should of course be mentioned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, Snoogans, OK, I see the issue. I have a paid subscription and on that it doesn't say opinion (I did double check because when I first saw the article I thought I saw "opinion". Either way, I see no issue including the WSJ opinion and we can call it as such. Regardless, the concerns raised are still there. I'm not saying we should simply remove them but if we are going to include unsubstantiated rumors, and that's what they are, then we should also include commentary that notes as much. I would ask that you tone down your last bit. You are critical of including a WSJ editorial but OK with treating "The Daily Beast" as a RS? I'm agreeing with many of the editors who were involved with the RfC that noted that we have a core, undisclosed source and many other sources repeating the claim. We also have source saying an NRA lawyer said she was concerned about the Russia involvement but the lawyer specifically denies making any such claim. Alternatively, we can just say this is an investigation and that all reports are rumor at this point. That wouldn't stop us from saying many NRA critics have run with the claims but we shouldn't act like the claims are in the least bit substantiated. Springee (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- If we don't have some type of way forward by this evening I'll ping the RfC participants. It's disappointing when an editor who adds material doesn't come to the talk page to discuss it. I've added a NPOV tag to the section. Springee (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that still, no other news source is claiming that there is a FBI investigation. It's still all centered on a report by McClatchy, based on two anonymous sources. As time passes, shouldn't some news source corroborate this? Or the FBI even confirm it? We keep acting like this is a done deal, a proven fact. It's an claim that hasn't been corroborated. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Nation actually backs that up the vague single source issues you have mentioned. Perhaps we should include that in the article. [[52]]:
- No other outlets have confirmed McClatchy's report. Articles from the same co-authors, Peter Stone and Greg Gordon, have relied on similarly vague sourcing. After reporting that the NRA may have been used to funnel Russian money to the Trump campaign, Gordon conceded in an interview that one possibility is it "did not happen at all." Springee (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Nation is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have something to back that POV? The Nation isn't a right wing source interested in saving Trump. Springee (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- That the Nation has a fringey left bias does not make it a RS for criticism of the left. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd love to see where that consensus was determined. In the meantime, The Nation was help to be acceptable for BLP's [53] here and here [54]. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- That the Nation has a fringey left bias does not make it a RS for criticism of the left. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have something to back that POV? The Nation isn't a right wing source interested in saving Trump. Springee (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Washington Times said something similar a month earlier [[55]]. Springee (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Moonie Times is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Snoogans, I think you will need to show why these diverse sources aren't reliable for the claims they are making. Springee (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am absolutely not going to dig through linkspam from a "diverse" list of rubbish sources. It's a complete waste of time to fit through op-eds and "reporting" from outlets that undertake no fact-checking and frequently publish birther conspiracy theories, 9/11 truther nonsense, climate change denial, Seth Rich conspiracy theories and so on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to dig through link spam. All you have to do is go to WP:RSN and find discussions that support the view that those sources aren't reliable. Springee (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, from RSN, just like the links I provided you to show that the community doesn't dismiss the Nation like you do. The Times article is written by Rowan Scarborough, a notable journalist and best-selling author. You, on the other hand, want to take the word of two non-notable reporters with some anonymous sources on a claim that at least one of them appears to be backing away from. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- What about This discussion on RSN? or this one?. Notability/bestsellingness have absolutely nothing to with importance or reliability Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Neither of those reach any consensus. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Skimming through those articles doesn't show the WT to be unreliable. We also need to consider it's not just the WT but WT + WSJ + NR + TN + TF all saying the same thing. Springee (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- You're conflating op-eds and reporting, which is egregious in the case of WSJ, which has high-quality news reporting but idiotic op-eds. And a collection of bad sources do not equate one good source. Is there a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to it? Well, the WT + WSJ op-ed page + NR + TF say that there is no scientific consensus on climate change and that the world might even be cooling. Let's go and add that to the climate change article, shall we? Or wait, that's not how this works, is it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Op-eds aren't prohibited. It depends on the author and what they're covering. Climate change has nothing to do with this, nor is it mentioned in the source article under discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The cited Washington Times article is completely unusable here, especially when we have numerous reliable sources that have actually done some journalism beyond asking a few NRA members what they think. Members like Rose Wilson who calls it a lie because Hillary uranium(!) or Ricky Bullon who calls it "stupid" because Hillary funnel(!). Let's try to do better.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why would it be completely unusable? Because you don't like it? It's not an op-ed (which doesn't immediately disqualify a source anyway). It's a piece by a notable reporter. I've seen no consensus at RSN showing that the WT is not a RS. For you to arbitrarily declare is 'completely unusable', then add comments about random people not contained in the article, is simply not supported by policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sngs, I'm not conflating anything. Those sources have all said there hasn't been any follow on after the original McClatchy claims. Do you have any sources that refute that claim? You might not like the WT but given the range of sources saying the same thing I think you will have to do better. MrX, the same really applies to your objections. We aren't talking about a single source or just right leaning sources. Springee (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal OPINION | POTOMAC WATCH piece is devoid of substance and full of random musings by an NRA lawyer/not lawyer. Let's pass on this one too.- MrX 🖋 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The WSJ article is making a few claims. First is that the lawyer didn't say something she is reported to have said (which I admit doesn't directly impact the current wiki text). The other, which is confirmed by more than one source, is that no sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims. That is a rather significant bit of information which shouldn't be hidden from readers. Do you have any sources that say there have been followup reports that corroborate the original? We can always attribute the no follow up claims to the various sources rather than in Wikipedia voice. After all, the WSJ is a very significant source. Springee (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal OPINION | POTOMAC WATCH piece is devoid of substance and full of random musings by an NRA lawyer/not lawyer. Let's pass on this one too.- MrX 🖋 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- You're conflating op-eds and reporting, which is egregious in the case of WSJ, which has high-quality news reporting but idiotic op-eds. And a collection of bad sources do not equate one good source. Is there a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to it? Well, the WT + WSJ op-ed page + NR + TF say that there is no scientific consensus on climate change and that the world might even be cooling. Let's go and add that to the climate change article, shall we? Or wait, that's not how this works, is it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- What about This discussion on RSN? or this one?. Notability/bestsellingness have absolutely nothing to with importance or reliability Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, from RSN, just like the links I provided you to show that the community doesn't dismiss the Nation like you do. The Times article is written by Rowan Scarborough, a notable journalist and best-selling author. You, on the other hand, want to take the word of two non-notable reporters with some anonymous sources on a claim that at least one of them appears to be backing away from. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to dig through link spam. All you have to do is go to WP:RSN and find discussions that support the view that those sources aren't reliable. Springee (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am absolutely not going to dig through linkspam from a "diverse" list of rubbish sources. It's a complete waste of time to fit through op-eds and "reporting" from outlets that undertake no fact-checking and frequently publish birther conspiracy theories, 9/11 truther nonsense, climate change denial, Seth Rich conspiracy theories and so on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Snoogans, I think you will need to show why these diverse sources aren't reliable for the claims they are making. Springee (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Moonie Times is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Nation actually backs that up the vague single source issues you have mentioned. Perhaps we should include that in the article. [[52]]: