Talk:Wayne LaPierre

message: I'm very surprised that the Criticism section does not include references to the Ackerman McQueen controversy of 2019. Mr LaPierre received withering public criticism for his spending, as did the agency who worked with the NRA. This was covered extensively in WSJ, NY Times, WaPo, and others. 76.118.42.231 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ackerman McQueen controversy 

message: It seems more accurate to say that La Pierre is a gun rights advocate rather than a Second Amendment advocate.  He does support a very specific interpretation of the Second Amendment but is against other interpretations of it. This is different than generally supporting it. --Calan (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to this page to post the same sentiment!!The "Second Amendment" terminology is too loaded,inferring that the NRA interpretation of the Amendment is necessarily correct rather than (as I believe) dangerously wrong.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical precedent from both scores of founding documents and, in more contemporary examples, the D.C. vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago cases, entails that the NRA's assertion that it is a pre-existing individual right that is protected, rather than afforded, by the bill of rights, is correct. Which would make the NRA's interpretation a literal one, rather than simply an opinion expressed by a civil rights organization. Z.F. 98.237.78.87 (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The “second amendment” terminology is also quite cryptic for non-US readers. What's the problem with “gun rights advocate” ? It seems accurate to me, whatever your opinion on the second amendment. GL (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Amendment or Gun rights advocate? 

message: Please add:  Mr. LaPierre received a medical deferment for the Vietnam War draft and has never served in the military.  Source:  http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html; Lawrence O'Donnell Show, MSNBC, December 21, 2012.
Lawdini (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence O'Donnell is a hyper-partisan polemic, and is not a reliable source for this.  Arzel (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that the description of "hyper-partisan polemic" could almost apply to LaPierre himself. He is a very public political person. It's normal for real politicians to have their military service (or lack of it) scrutinised. Especially given his primary raison d'etre, the same could logically apply to LaPierre. Let's not dismiss the information by simply dismissing another person. Are there better sources? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ask what is the relevance?  Arzel (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just told you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That he recieved a medical deferment for Vietman?  Has he publically made any statements related to Vietman?  He is not a politician.  It is clear why O'Donnell is bringing it up, because O'Donnell's raison d'etre is to try and make anyone he doesn't like look like a hypocrite as much as possible.  I don't think that is a valid reason for inclusion here regardless of how it is sourced.   Arzel (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have completely ignored, misread, or misunderstood what I said. Please have another read of my WHOLE post. (Except maybe the first sentence which was a maybe poor attempt at humour.) If a single part of it confuses you, please ask me to clarify. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: About five years ago, or just over, a doctor at the MEPS at the time came out stating that the reason was that he had a Schizophrenia diagnosis.  I'll have to dig, or someone interested can, the news came out shortly after Sandy Hook. The Doctor may have broken a law by speaking on it though. 174.207.16.242 (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please establish consensus on this change. It seems like the link is contested and the change is disputed. Vacationnine 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 22 December 2012 

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

message: I won't take a side on this issue of gun control, but I can say that this man- regardless of his political sanity- has become a literal shooting target for proponents of gun control. Activists have, once again, seized control of this article, subjecting it to outrageously one sided criticism. LaPierre's statements are paraphrased in ways to make them appear ridiculous, even if they are. A true testament of a fair individual is one who is able to withstand the viewpoint of both sides. Although Wikipedia may contain a disproportionately small number of 2nd amendment advocates, it is unfair and immoral to slander one man and slant one article. I am sure I will be torn apart for advocating some basic neutrality of decency, and that many will turn a blind eye and claim this article suits Wikipedia's standards. If that is so, it is Wikipedia's readers that lose out, not the pro-gun lobby.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.133.172 (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but an admin protected this article due to the BLP issues and neglected to undo the bad edits (for whatever reason) before locking the article. The lock will wear off in a couple days, then the article will be cleaned up. ROG5728 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a mess.  These articles should be blocked for 3 mos right after a storm like we've had. Cleaning it will be hard but we'll get there.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the bias is that the article had been sanitized.  It is only fair that notable criticism of a public figure should be included.  --Zeamays (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One more comment, since an editor keeps referring to "BLP issues", he might want to refer to the source:  WP:BLP#Public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Zeamays (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

text: So what? Well, as a very public spokesman for the NRA, it's a very bad look if he presents wrong figures in defence of his organisation's position, whether by mistake or deliberately in an attempt to deceive. (Do you know which of those two possibilities it was?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know of any public figures who haven't made an error in a speech? It's not notable at all, especially in a BLP article. ROG5728 (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

text: If you know of good, well-documented examples, please feel free to include them in the appropriate article. Before you refer to BLP again, please read the quote I presented above from WP:BLP#Public figures.  As for well-documented, LaPierre's notable error is contained in the transcript cited as a reference, so please don't repeat that again.  Articles should present both sides of significant arguments, so LaPierre's error should be included. --Zeamays (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Let's leave the personal insults out please.  We all struggle with these things called words.  Lapierre is a semipublic person because he leads an organization that is at the forefront of an issue.  That does not mean that every misquote is added to their biographical entry not does it give us liberty to libel the man here.  Type Barak Obama or Joe Biden and you get a very respectful biography of the two gentlemen who are public figures yet we don't find a bunch of POV pushing there.  The same should be true of Mr. Lapierre's entry here.  That is not the case at the moment, this article is largely trash and as others have noted the vast majority of the POV bias has been added in the last month and a half. It needs to be cleaned up and no, not every misquote is notable. As a clarification, I listened to the full testimony and Mr. Lapierre clarified his statement during the testimony itself so it wasn't a lie, it was a contextual error that wasn't clear at the time he cited it that was clarified as the discussion progressed - so even less notable (a very human problem with words like we all have).  We need to clean up this article once the block is lifted very respectful to WP:BLP-Justanonymous (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the "personal insult"? And where and what are the words where LaPierre clarified/corrected his error? HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If Just, Rog and Scal can show that LaPierre corrected himself, I agree the reference to an error should be removed. I had a look at the articles on Obama and Biden, and I agree that criticism is minimal, but to me that means that the articles don't contain enough criticism, not that sanitized articles should be the norm.  Wikipedia articles should not stint on including factual criticism of public figures to give the reader an honest evaluation.  BTW, LaPierre is not a semi-public figure, whatever that means.The only reference  I could find to "semi-public figure" is in the context of New Jersey law, where, as I understand it, this is a private figure who becomes involved in a court case and as a result is held to the higher standard of proof for libel normally required of public figures.  See: George, Helen W. (1986) "New Jersey Creates a New "Semi-Public Figure" in Defamation Actions: Sisler v. Gannett Co., Inc.," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 61: Iss. 1, Article 5. Available at: . If anyone in the USA is a public figure, it is he. --Zeamays (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: LaPierre has become a public figure OUTSIDE the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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

text: You have not yet convinced me that it's undue. Try discussing. You know. Answering questions, etc. He said a dumb thing. That's clear. Plenty of evidence. There are claims now that he corrected himself. Fine. Produce the evidence and all will be well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Rog repeatedly cites WP:BLP, but the section of it regarding public figures contradicts him. He does not acknowledge this and just keeps repeating WP:BLP..WP:BLP...WP:BLP....  If we're going to make progress, there needs to be on-topic discussion. --Zeamays (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: HiLo, of course you aren't convinced, because you've already made up your mind that Wayne LaPierre and the rest of us are nutters. A person with that kind of mindset has absolutely no business messing with a BLP article. The purpose of this article is to expound on Wayne LaPierre, as a person, in a neutral fashion, without giving undue weight to little tidbits like this one. Doesn't matter how much either of you dislike the man, we're going to be balanced in his article. ROG5728 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Rog, the personal views of editors are not to be discussed. No editor is unprejudiced. The point is to have NPOV content in the articles. --Zeamays (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, there's no reason to even have a discussion here if you two have made up your minds that the rest of us Wiki editors are "nutters" just because we want to maintain balance in a BLP article. By the way, you two keep bringing up AGF and complaining about perceived personal attacks, but you seem to be the only ones actually throwing out personal attacks against the rest of us "nutters." ROG5728 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: During the Presidential election I worked on keeping garbage out of the articles on the main candidates. There were many attempts to add it. I am proud that my efforts led to accusations from both the Romney and Obama camps that I was pushing a POV for the other side. I can have an opinion (and yes, being non-American it should be no surprise at all that I think the US gun lobby is nuts - almost all non-Americans think that), but keep it away from articles I edit. I haven't pushed for a particular view here, nor have I changed the POV of the article. I have asked questions on the Talk page. So far they are unanswered. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Rog: I request you retract that erroneous accusation.  I never said or wrote any such thing, nor is that my opinion. Your comment is entirely unfair disparagement of another editor. --Zeamays (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

text: THAT WAS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. YOUR DISCUSSION TACTICS ARE APPALLING!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

text: To get back on topic, what are your questions HiLo? Repeat them. ROG5728 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I REALLY CAN'T BE BOTHERED. IF YOU WON'T ANSWER THEM WHEN I FIRST ASK THEM, IT'S OBVIOUS TAHT YOU HAVE NO INTENTION TO TRULY DISCUSS THESE MATTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And then you accuse others of bias. LOL.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

message: Newtown board wants more cops in schools
I'm a little stunned by this...  --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: no not in this article  but there is a place for this - we can't balance POV pushing with more POV pushing in the other direction. Are you stunned because you think it's crazy that they would put armed guards after a massacre? Agree, they should've had them there before the shooting.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's surprising, then it's notable, anẰd you should consider adding it to this article. I differ with Just on this as a general point, and I want to be consistent. NPOV does not mean that every fact has to be balanced by an opposing fact, like Newton's 3rd law. --Zeamays (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Zeamays, we have a slightly different philosophy on the wiki which is fine, I respect you and your philosophy.  I just don't think it fits under WP:DUE.  We wrote that Wayne called for Guards in schools, then we wrote that some commentators called him crazy for that, then Joe Biden agreed it was a crazy idea (we can add that), then we write that newtown unanimously called for armed guards (we can add that), then a shooting in a school in atlanta was stopped by an armed guard with no loss of life (we can also add that)..  All are notable and all verifiable facts that  are tangentially relevant but to me all of it is immaterial in describing Mr. Lapierre in an encyclopedic article context.  It should be a very short beefy article detailing the substance of the person's very long career with his broad positions.  Other disagree which is fine, we'll find the happy  medium.  If we're going to go the long narrative route, then this and the atlanta shooting incident are notable.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Just, don't beat a dead horse. You know very well that's not what I advocate.  See my next edit, which I was writing while you added the above comment. --Zeamays (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it is rather surprising don't you think, everyone from the President, Vice President, virtually all of msnbc advocacy journalists, and even some commentators on Foxnews have called Mr. Lapierre crazy for advocating having armed guards in school...isn't it surprising then that newtown, the victims of a horrific mass murder, would now unanimously call for armed guards in their school?  It's surprising and by that standard notable for inclusion.  My gosh - the article is just going to be a gazillion POVs. Entire garbage and utterly unreadable. Wrong approach I say.  I'll read your post below. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Of course it should be put in.  This is what the governing body for Sandy Hook school (the school district) decided.   It's much more germane than what politicians elsewhere in the country are saying. PS actually it's not surprising.....the tragedy is being used by people elsewhere to further their own agendas, and comments by politicians elsewhere are easily understood in the context of being volleys in that battle. Whereas the folks directly involved want what will directly / actually help protect their kids. Actually, the folks even closer to the parents/kids (one of the PTA's) wanted two police officers in each school, and the board decided to ask for one in the schools (such as Sandy Hook and 3 others) that did not already have one.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but this is a Biography of a Living Person (of their entire life!).  How can just pouring advocacy from both sides every time the gun debate flares up in any way make this article better?  It doesn't.  Wikipedia is not that.  It violates WP:BLP, WP:Recentism, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE.  That's why the admins locked this page.  This should just be a short beefy article about Mr. Lapierre's broad contributions not a gun debate battleground page. but if the consensus is to add anything you want so long as it complies WP:RS, notable, and "surprising", then by all means but let's not block entries, everyone gets to add whatever they want, don't revert anyone.  Add the Newtown stuff and Add all the criticism.  I'm just here to say that that is not what Wikipedia is.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: North8000, I can't find your entry on the article.  It might have been reverted.  Feel free to add it, Zeamays is ok with it and I won't stand in your way.  It would actually help balance things in a bizzaro superman world kindof way..-Justanonymous (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree with all of your comments, with the caveat that "higher standards" should not be unequally applied.  Unequally applying higher standards to exclude material is the most common way to POV an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed North8000.  Thx much.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  They said "Yes" to Wayne's suggestion... 

message: The current state of this article is that criticisms of LaPierre's public statements are described thus, "so and so criticized and so and so criticized, etc."  The basis for each criticism is unstated.  This does not provide the reader with needed information to understand the debate. For an example of how that should work, see the article on Gabrielle Giffords, in which her critics' positions are briefly explained.  --Zeamays (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholeheartedly agree on this point! As Justanonymous stated, this article needs to be "a very short beefy article detailing the substance of the person's very long career with his broad positions." I also like Zeamays recommendation of the Gabrielle Giffords article as an example of how to do it. Although, I recommend going one step further and use the entire article as a template and not just the criticism section that includes criticism. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Scal, there isn't a criticism section in the Giffords bio. The criticism is intermingled into the discussion of her legislative work at state and Federal levels. --Zeamays (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I still think the suggestion of mirroring that article is a good one.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good idea.North8000 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

text: OK, who wants to volunteer their Sandbox space to start the new & improved version? If I have the time over the weekend, I might take a stab at it. If anyone else does, please post a link. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements needed 

message: It's original research, but this criminal engages in robocalling.  I can't add this to the to the article, but this man has called my phone in violation of Federal Laws multiple times.   He is a bad man, and a criminal. Huw Powell (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Huw, first off, thank you for making your comment on the Talk page and giving others the opportunity to comment. As for the situation, as offended as you might be by the robocalling its something that is allowed under FTC regulations. The NRA is both a non-profit and a political group so they fit the criteria to make calls to numbers that on the federal do not call list. The next time it happens, just listen to the entire message and then follow the instructions at the end of it to get your number removed. If you request it, according to the same FTC regulations, they have to remove your number from their list. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, interesting point, Scalhotrod.  So he's not a criminal, just an offensive intruder.  Thanks for the clarification! Listening to the entire message to find out how to get him to leave me alone, of course, carries a cost of my time.  And some of these calls go on and on and on and on and I charge $60/hour. I still call him a criminal, despite the legalistic defense that "sort of" passes muster that you present. He intrudes into my life and speaks hate into my ear, and I have to listen to it all to get him to stop? Huw Powell (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-profit that pays an executive to hassle people on the phone almost a million dollars a year is a joke. Huw Powell (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I often wonder what kind of targets such annoying behaviour is aimed at. I can't see it as very effective marketing. Definitely not in this case! HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The alternative is to call their headquarters in Virginia during the week and ask to be removed from their marketing programs. The person will ask you for your name and all of the phone numbers that you want removed. And for the record, call him whatever you like... :) Your 1st Amendment rights allow you to do so, just make sure that it starts with, "I consider him a _____..." That way its an opinion and not libel. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robocalling in violation of US Law 

message: This is not the forum for discussing Wiki policies. I see a lively discussion about lack of criticism of WLP in the article. Some ask, if we include criticisms, where does it stop? Others say, why no criticisms? Forgive me for creating this as a new section but I see the talk thus far disjointed. In the past, I've seen many Wiki articles, specifically on politicians, that had a section called 'Criticism'. Now I can't find any on pages of major politicians, or celebrities (like Brad Pitt). However, organizations (like the UN) have sections with the term 'criticism' in the heading. 
We can debate whether WLP is a conspiracy theorist, nutjob, etc, or not. The fact is he is the executive of an organization that aggressively, vehemently, and proactively litigates on behalf of gun rights (the litigation well documented in Wiki, especially in the SCOTUS Heller v DC case aftermath. We can all concede the NRA does this under his leadership and draws from his efforts. Having said that we can all also conclude that he has a very specific agenda. The article has a single section entitled 'views on gun control' and the way it's written indicates one of WLP's PR people wrote it, or maybe himself in some "WLP Doctrine" on gun control because it is a sanitized list of simple, clear, specific, and bite-sized positions on specific aspects of the gun control debate. This is a slighty-less-than-blatant attempt to paint WLP in a specific, positive light. Given his extensive public speaking, published pieces, and the extent of litigation under his leadership, we can conclude there is more to him and his agenda than is reflected in this article.
My point: as a reader, it does not make sense to me how someone who is the chief of an organization that is so fervently opposed to gun control, it concocts strategies on what cases to present to SCOTUS and when, and the likelihood of getting pro-agenda actions passed (, has such a sanitized Wiki page. The guy has written a book, as cited, called "The Global War on Your Guns (2006)". I haven't read the book, but I suspect that he also believes that governments and powerful organizations are actively and clandestinely attempting to take guns away from people. This is not cited as one of his views on gun control.
I propose the following changes:
1) If the section is to be titled 'views on gun control', every bullet point must have a citation, or at least be marked as 'citation needed'. Considering half of the current bullets have no citation, there should be a warning about lack of sources. 
2) Include a section on his motivations and feelings about gun rights and possession in general.  Azadi { (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction of criticism and neutrality and request for inclusion of opposition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wayne LaPierre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130120031229/http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html to http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article on Wayne LaPierre lists his year of birth as 1949, but at the bottom of the article, under "Categories", it has him on a list of people born in 1948, where his name does, in fact, appear.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_LaPierre
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:1948_births&from=L
Doctor99~enwiki (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources said 1949, so I went with that. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayne LaPierre article - Categories - Year of birth mistake? 

message: This text has been removed repeatedly:
In an article about a gun ontrol advocate, this text has been added repeatedly:
Can anyone give me a good reason why these two gaffes are being treated differently? Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sourcing? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So if we add some secondary sources you'll be fine with adding a paragraph of comparable length to this article? Felsic2 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend on the sources and what they say about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaffes 

message: There are arguments here about whether particular text or ideas are WP:UNDUE. 
I recommend that you refer to the following definition from WP:NPV
:Due and undue weight
:Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. [Emphasis mine]]
In other words, the way to determine whether a particular topic in the article has due or undue weight is to see how prominent those viewpoints are in WP:RS. If a particular statement by LaPierre or by his critics is repeated in multiple WP:RS, then it meets WP:UNDUE and belongs in the article. I think that a dozen references from major newspapers, broadcasting and digital sources such as New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, etc. would establish weight. 
It is not a valid argument for somebody to simply say, "I think [in my opinion] this gives too much emphasis to an unimportant issue," if that issue has been covered by many WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: Old citation is 404. 
New citation should be: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/530116130/201623149349300602/IRS990  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericscoles (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary citation 

message: There are several articles that discuss Mr. LaPierre's activities as a Democrat in Virginia. These include references to his work on the McGovern campaign in Virginia http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/us/wayne-lapierre-the-gun-man-sticking-to-his-cause.html
Also, from his official NRA biography http://nraontherecord.org/wayne-lapierre/, it would be relevant to include his activity as an NRA lobbyist for the NRA-ILA both regionally and as its national director before he became the Executive Vice President.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swazman (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information on his pre-NRA and early NRA career 

message: For over 30 years, their primary recruitment tactic has been open and willful violation of 18 USC Sect. 2385, "Advocating Overthrow".  This needs to be documented.  This can be documented from their own sources and advertising, as well as the resultant violence and Terrorism that has resulted from this strategy to recruit new members, primarily the mentally deranged.
As for the Russia factor, this is a developing story, and appears that Russia has used the NRA's "Advocating Overthrow" strategy to destabilize the United States of America, as well as to seat Donald Trump.  This is a developing story, and it appears that arrests will be made.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article214075459.html "Russia investigators likely got access to NRA's tax filings, secret donors" (McClatchy, DC Bureau)
Also, The Advocating Overthrow strategy, as well as the Russia factor have to have been signed off by LaPierre.  Someone deleted this talk section.  This needs to be in the article, whomever deleted this section a few minutes ago must approve of the Overthrow of the United States Government, or of Russia's activities using the NRA and Wayne LaPierre.  They were not duped, and this is how the history books will read.  Will political bullshit keep what the history books will contain out of the WikiPedia article because it gives Christian Conservatives "bad optics"?  This is a serious proposal, and what will be coming to the article is well researched, with dates, advertising contract numbers, etc, all third party sourced and within the guidelines.  The reader will be left with the question of why they would do it, no conclusions will be made (NPOV), or as Fox News used to say "We report, you decide".
The fact is that the Advocating Overthrow strategy has been wildly successful for the NRA, and Wayne LaPierre has to be credited for it, because that is the way it happened.
Again, the vast majority of sources will be the NRA itself, and will document the transformation of the NRA into an organization for arming for overthrow under LaPierre's guidance.
Instead of being a yellowbellied coward by deleting this talk section, how about identifying yourself in this section, and giving your reasons for not including the FACTS?
174.207.16.242 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you desiring to make a contribution to the Russia Hoax, a clever ploy to change the political topic from improper emails & emailing to Russia, as if the hypothesis that Russia uncovered improper emails were more important than the content of the emails and how emails were handled?  I suggest that the article on La Pierre be objective and deal with the facts concerning the man, not an attempt to practice politics. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a new section on Advocating for Overthrow of the United States Government, and Treason on behalf of Russia 

message: Hey editors,
I'm writing to you to see if this is truly NPOV. Here's the first graf of the article:
As executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, he advocated armed guards for schools in response to the school shootings at Sandy Hook and Stoneman Douglas. He supports longer sentences for gun crime, institutionalization of the mentally ill, and the suppression of violent video-games.
It sounds like a positive portrayal of LaPierre's political beliefs -- rather than describing a more even-handed picture of the man and the consequences of his stances. Maybe we could add like "LaPierre has come under criticism from gun control activists for..."
What do you think?
151.202.25.55 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a seriously poor intro for a BLP article.  Needs serious work. Springee (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Has come under criticism" is a weasel word method to attack somebody. If you allege somebody has done bad things, you first need to have a clear axiology, a basis for deeming behavior good vs bad. Then you need proof. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? MIA 

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

message: , there are a few problems with your infobox change.  First, after it was reverted you should have opened a talk discussion here before making the edit again.  Second, there is a lot of information that used to be effectively in the lead that you removed with the removal of that infobox.  For example, when LaPierre assumed office.  Since that material was removed with the edit you should have added it to the lead.  It is also useful to have the linkage between predecessor and successor in examples like company/organization CEOs/presidents etc.  Finally, while the template is clearly politician/public office focused, I could find nothing that said it wasn't acceptable for use in other cases.  The template has been used almost 150,000 times.  Do you think all of those are public offices?  How does it harm the reader or the template to use it in this case?  Springee (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that infoboxes don't necessarily need to follow their intended use, since the name of the template isn't visible to the reader. I'm just not sure if terms like "incumbent" or "assumed office" are commonly used for the CEO of a nonprofit. –dlthewave ☎ 02:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox  

message: , I think I agree with the IP editor, that material shouldn't be in the article.  It isn't tied to anything else and as stated it suggests that he may have avoided the draft through questionable means else why mention it?  It doesn't appear as part of a section talking about his views on military service nor does it appear to be anything that is particularly controversial about him.  I'm sure that pales next to being the fact of the NRA and now associated with abuse of organization funds.  That he wasn't drafted seems to be UNDUE in this article.  That said, random IP editors removing blocks of text is always a suspicious thing and I wouldn't blame you for reflexively restoring the content. Springee (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any reply I will remove the information and UNDUE and possibly a BLP issue since it implies something without evidence.  Springee (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implying LaPierre was a draft dodger 

message: Is there anything at all to be said of this man's personal life? Marriage? Children? Hobbies? --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life? 

message: Wayne LaPierre is also known for his hunting trip to Botswana where he and his wife Susan LaPierre have killed an endangered wildlife species.
 ReinoutRyheul (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021 

message: Revert changes made by Springee to last edit by 0mtwb9gd5wx.   69.158.90.121 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Already done Although lets chill with the personal attacks and accusations of advocacy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks removed. Springee (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021 

message: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_LaPierre&oldid=1025811427
Wall Street Journal: LaPierre spent $274,695.03, in NRA funds, on Zegna Suits from 2004 to 2017:
  based on edit history :
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Springee
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d 
seem to have a bias, based on all the deletes they have made. They have not offered to discuss this reliably sourced contribution. They just delete. 00:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't how pulling up my contribution history shows "I have a bias," but whatever. When material is challenged, the next step is to discuss it on the talk page and not to edit war. And I already stated here it may be appropriate to talk about LaPierre's personal spending, but talking about the bankruptcy case seems more like a WP:COAT and it would probably be better if it stayed on the NRA page. Please remember to sign your comments with fours of these: ~~~~ Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: "Wall Street Journal: LaPierre spent $274,695.03, in NRA funds, on Zegna Suits from 2004 to 2017" 

message: Including this as part of the description of the NRA is basically uncritically repeating official propaganda.  Some have been skeptical of the organization's alleged safety efforts for years, and recently the wheels have pretty much fallen off: Participation in the NRA's child gun safety education program "dropped 96 percent in 24 months, as the NRA cut funding on 'safety, training & education' by $14 million, or more than a third."; "For a really long time, the NRA has pretended that Eddie Eagle is a responsible way to teach kids about gun safety. But it's actually more like a marketing or a propaganda tool, similar to Joe Camel in marketing cigarettes to kids." etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "firearms safety training organization" 

message: There is no evidence that LaPierre received a medical deferment to avoid serving in Vietnam. All we know is that he had a draft number (097)that placed him in the “most likely to be drafted” category, and that he did not serve. He could have had a medical deferment or he could have avoided service in another way. Right now, the current published version is providing unsubstantiated - or false - information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moomat (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , did you read the relevant reference from Snopes.com? For your convenience, here are the most relevant sentences.  Accordingly, your expression of doubt about the medical deferment is unsupported by the references to reliable sources now in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam draft status 

message: On August 6, 2020... New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit against the NRA and LaPierre... calling for the dissolution of the association due to chronic fraudulent management.
:What was the outcome of this lawsuit? Valetude (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Added most recent (Mar 2022) development to article. Schazjmd (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome of 2020 lawsuit?