Jump to content

Talk:National Rifle Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jim Baker redirect

[edit]

redirect without actual reference:

National Rifle Association (redirect from Jim Baker (lobbyist))

Issue of largest outside donor

[edit]

The end of the Elections section says the NRA was the largest donor in the 2016 election of any "independent group." The source article from Open Secrets says "outside group." The question is the definition of "independent" vs. "outside," which normally mean the same for this purpose. If they do, the article is incorrect. Open Secrets itself lists Priorities USA Action Outside Spending[1] as the largest outside group with over four times the amount the NRA spent. QuilaBird (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/detail/2016?cmte=C00495861&tab=summary

Remove claim that NRA downplayed gun control issues previous to the 1970s

[edit]

Change: Until the 1970s, the NRA was nonpartisan.[45] Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues. During the 1970s, it became increasingly aligned with the Republican Party.

To: Until the 1970s, the NRA was nonpartisan. During the 1970s, it became increasingly aligned with the Republican Party. [45]

In the section on the 1970s-2000s, the claim is made that "Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." I don't think this is true and it isn't related to the previous or succeeding sentences anyway. The previous sentences discuss whether or not the NRA was partisan, but that's a different question than whether or not they downplayed political issues.

The claim also contradicts the section on 1933 to the 1970s that talks about how the NRAs lobbying surrounding the NFA. Which is it, did they downplay gun control or did they send their president to speak to congress on the most significant piece of gun control that had ever been passed in the US?

Here is a link to the April 1933 issue of the NRA's magazine in which they list state firearm legislation that they believe should be killed. The editorial of that issue brags about how efficient the NRA was at killing firearm legislation. That seems like an odd thing to do for an organization that was downplaying gun control issues. https://archive.org/details/sim_american-rifleman_1933-04_81_4/page/38/mode/2up?view=theater

I propose the claim that, "Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." be removed from the article. The sentence is of questionable accuracy and it doesn't even make sense in it's current location. Serowman (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the previous sentence, a Washington Post article, does contradict "downplayed gun control issues" at the very least. It discusses times in the 1930s and the 1960s when the NRA opposed gun control laws and regulations. That article does claim that the NRA avoided partisan association before the 1970s (e.g., avoiding direct association with the Republican Party), but that's a different claim than downplaying or avoiding gun control issues. Vadder (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that citation for the sentence I think should be removed is the same citation as the previous sentence. And this paragraph in the cited article seems to directly contradict the claim made in the sentence.
"Many observers believe the organization was apolitical before the 1970s. But my recently completed dissertation — which analyzes nearly 80 years of the NRA’s widely circulated American Rifleman magazine — shows it was an active, staunch opponent of gun regulations since at least the 1930s, when gun policy first reached the national agenda." Serowman (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a reliable source (and see wp:or. We go by what wp:rs say, not what you think. Nor did your source contradict it, as the page was just a notice of new legalizations, not comment on them (and was wp:primary anyway). Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I take your points. Let's completely ignore the American Rifleman issue I linked to and focus on the citation in the sentences just before and after the offending sentence at [45].
The claim that "Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." should be removed because the citation at [45] not only doesn't support that claim, it in fact directly contradicts it.
Here is the paragraph in the citation which contradicts the claim. "Many observers believe the organization was apolitical before the 1970s. But my recently completed dissertation — which analyzes nearly 80 years of the NRA’s widely circulated American Rifleman magazine — shows it was an active, staunch opponent of gun regulations since at least the 1930s, when gun policy first reached the national agenda.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/26/how-nra-became-core-member-republican-coalition/ Serowman (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC
And before the 1930's? This is another problem with your edit, even if we accept that from the 1930's onwards it stopped ""Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues.", we do not say that in the 30's it focus was on hunting (etc), nor does the source say it changed its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand you argument. Isn't it enough that the offending sentence isn't supported by *any* citation in the article and the proceeding and succeeding citations seem to directly refute it?
You are not a reliable source so unless you can find a source that says that the NRA downplayed gun control issues I don't see why that claim should be in the article. It's just not supported by any citation.
I'm going to start by adding a citation needed tag, but I firmly believe the claim should be removed completely. Serowman (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even then NRA says that was its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question of their focus is different than whether or not they downplayed gun control issues.
The paragraph below in the citation you added seems to directly refute the claim made in the sentence. It talks about how the NRA played a direct role in legislation in the 1920s and 1930s. The question of the NRA's focus is different than the claim made in the offending sentence that they downplayed gun control issues. If you want to edit the sentence to reduce the scope of it's claims, and move it out of the section on the 1970s then that might be an acceptable change.
"The NRA played a role in fledgling political efforts to formulate state and national gun policy in the 1920s and 1930s after Prohibition-era liquor trafficking stoked gang warfare. It backed measures like requiring a permit to carry a gun and even a gun purchase waiting period.
And the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934, with two of its leaders testifying before Congress at length regarding this landmark legislation. They supported, if grudgingly, its main provisions, such as restricting gangster weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. But they opposed handgun registration, which was stripped out of the nation’s first significant national gun law." Serowman (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"At first the group was mainly concerned with marksmanship..." "Throughout this period, however, the NRA remained primarily focused on marksmanship, hunting, and other recreational activities, although it did continue to voice opposition to new gun laws, especially to its membership." or what we say, that was its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the sentence doesn't just say that the NRA focused on those issues. It also says that the NRA downplayed gun control issues which is directly refuted by both of your citations which discuss how active the NRA was in shaping gun control in the 1930s. I have removed the sentence since it is so clearly refuted by the citations. Serowman (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No they do not, and with this it is time for others to step as WE are wp:budgeloning the process. Notre I still oppose your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latest edit is less incorrect, but it is still misleading. The NRA was constantly strongly opposing various gun control measures that they felt went too far in the 1930s, although the sources you found don’t seem to mention it. In fact they strongly opposed the early versions of the NFA until it was greatly reduced in scope. I will find some secondary sources and update the sentence to be more correct later if you are adamant that it should not be removed.
But the sentence is pretty unnecessary where it is it breaks up the sentences before and after that discuss the NRA’s level of partisanship. I suggest if there is to be a discussion of the NRA’s level of support for gun control in the 1930’s that it should be moved out of the 1970s section and given more nuance. Serowman (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And supported others, and again we have RS saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your saying here. But I think the section is correct now, or at least as correct as you will allow it. So I will move on to other things. Serowman (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~::::::::"At first the group was mainly concerned with marksmanship..." "Throughout this period, however, the NRA remained primarily focused on marksmanship, hunting, and other recreational activities, although it did continue to voice opposition to new gun laws, especially to its membership." or what we say, that was its focus.

 Note: This is not the intended usage of edit request templates. They are intended for editors who do not have editing rights to request an edit, not for general discussion of whether an edit should be made. If you want further input, you might consider a request for comments but it is worth trying to resolve it without the RFC procedure first. I have removed the edit request template because this page is not semiprotected, and for the reasons outlined, but if you reach a conclusion and for some reason cannot make an edit, feel free to reinstate the template. Irltoad (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NRA (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 November 2024

[edit]

National Rifle Association → National Rifle Association of America –

What's in a name?

National Rifle Association is unique amongst articles relating to National Rifle Associations in the title being arbitrarily abbreviated. The organisation is called the “National Rifle Association of America”, but the en.WP article title omits “of America”. In 2024, this:

  • Does not conform to WP:Criteria
  • Does not reflect the most common usage within WP
  • Deserves re-assessment and scrutiny per WP:GLOBALISE to ensure it is not embedding systemic bias.

This proposed move will probably be more controversial than it really should be.

WP:CRITERIA

  • Recognizability: The abbreviated form is only recognisable when contextualised as US/USPol. Most Authority Control sources & third party encyclopaedias use the full name, since context is not available until you start reading the entry.
  • Naturalness: “of America” is not unnatural - the other articles cope with “of Australia” or “of India”. Moreover, the majority of in-body wikilinks use the full “of America” form, so editors across en.WP don't find it too objectionable.
  • Precision: “National Rifle Association” is imprecise and does not unambiguously define the scope. This has caused actual errors and confusion including:
  • Concision: “of America” is not verbose. It might be verbose to use it repeatedly once contextualised, but not on first use or as an article title.
  • Consistency: omitting “of America” is inconsistent with NRA of India/Pakistan/Australia/New Zealand/Norway. We “got away with it” when Wikipedia was more US-centric, but Wikipedia is now covers more global subjects and it deserves re-evaluation to ensure we are not embedding systemic bias.

WP:COMMONNAME

A 2022 discussion on the Talk page (which was not an RfM discussion and therefore mainly engaged involved editors) came to No Consensus for Change. Some editors cited WP:COMMONNAME when opposing the move. However, this seems to be a What First Comes to Mind interpretation as COMMONNAME is really intended for situations like Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali. Although there are exceptions where an abbreviation or acronym is used (e.g. FIFA), the only way I can see it applying here is by arguing that “the abbreviated form is what mass media use”. However, COMMONNAME is more nuanced than that:

“Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. … When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.”

(Emphasis mine). The abbreviated form is not Precise or Consistent and is ambiguous without further context. Even if it commonly used (in context) by reliable third-party sources, it is not encyclopaedic. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should look beyond the scope of what CNN or the NYT use and consider authoritative sources.

COMMONNAME also suggests looking at other encyclopaedic sources to determine what titles are in an encyclopaedic register.

Most non-English Wikipedias also use “of America” fr.WP, it.WP, simple.WP. Hemmers (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed since your last move request 2 years ago? "National_Rifle_Association_of_America" Springee (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increasing globalisation, which deserves re-assessment - WP:CCC. The last discussion was a pure article talk discussion not a wider RFM, which limited contributions largely to involved editors. In light of Globalise, wider opinions should be sought.
  • Declining usage of the current title vs. the "of America" redirect for in-body wikilinks. In a similar vein, NRA was recently moved back to the disambig from being a redirect, since additional global "NRAs" meant "National Rifle Association" (of America) no longer met the criteria for Primary Topic.
  • An understanding that when WP:COMMONNAME was invoked in 2022, those doing so neglected to address the caveat highlighted above, and may have been citing the policy erronously on a What First Comes to Mind basis. This should have been challenged more robustly at the time. It is reasonable that the application and relevance of WP:COMMONNAME should be discussed and clarified, since the policy itself seems to explicitly oppose the current title. I hope those citing COMMONNAME this time around will address this issue and not just say "Oppose per COMMONNAME", which would be unhelpful given the clear and explicit issues presented.
The simple fact is, the current title does not comply with WP:CRIT or WP:COMMONNAME. It just doesn't. Authority Sources, other encyclopaedias - even other Wikipedias - all agree. We're out of step.
Hemmers (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence for those claims? Otherwise, this looks like you didn't get the answer you wanted last time so you are asking again in hopes of getting a different answer this time. On Wikipedia such strategies do work from time to time but it would be better if you provided better details why things have changed. Ping previous participants@Chaheel Riens, HiLo48, Bobsd, and Muboshgu:. Springee (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence for those claims?
I have - at some effort - literally compiled an extensive critique of this article's non-compliance with established WP Policy. I must ask you to engage with the substance of the issue and not engage in what could be considered ad hominems.
Changes - such as "National Rifle Association" being less widely used than "National Rifle Association of America" - are clearly evident in the wikilink stats (which I have listed). There was also the NRA disambig move. I have provided examples of erroneous links made to the wrong National Rifle Association. And we must remember that there was no firm consensus to "Keep" the title in 2022. It was a "No Consensus to Change", which is open-ended and accepts that there is uncertainty. If we are going to stick with a non-standard, inconsistent, non-compliant title, then we must expect it to be challenged and reconsidered periodically. Consensus can change.
I accept that "having another go" is sometimes deployed as a poor faith strategy. I would also caution that attempting to discredit the RFM by saying "it's just sour grapes" whilst declining to engage with any of the issues raised (including subsequent changes) is also poor faith. I am sure that is not your intention and your next post will "play the ball". Hemmers (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the examples of National Rifle Association of America are ones you added/changed from National Rifle Association? The first one I investigated is the link from Ice T's article. It was added in 2014 or so as National Rifle Association (the cited reference just says NRA). You added "of America" last year [1]. How many other redirects did you change? Did your edits significantly change the numbers? Note that I picked Ice T's article basically because it was on the list and didn't seem like the sort of article that would include the Conservativism template. Springee (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose I believe that nothing has fundamentally changed since the same editor proposed the same change back in 2022 here. Arguments then are as valid now as they were first time round. Responding due to a ping, because despite the comment from Hemmers that contributions last time round mainly engaged involved editors - I've only ever edited the article once to revert vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose (Responding due to a ping.) I simply cannot see the point of this request. I don't recall the previous discussion. I am Australian, and cannot recall EVER seeing or hearing the organisation referred to with "of America" as part of its name. I don't know of any other organisation known as a National Rifle Association. I'm someone who is very sensitive to American cultural domination in the world, often fighting situations where Americans act as if their version of something is the only one. (Misunderstandings of my position on this have upset American editors at times.) But this is NOT one of those situations. I see no case being made here that any confusion has ever resulted from our use of the current name. Just now I have discovered that there is a National Rifle Association of Australia but, as mentioned before, I have never heard of it. It is apparently all about the use of fullbore rifles in sport shooting competitions, but doesn't even tell me what a fullbore rifle is. Yes, we have an article - Fullbore rifle, but incredibly, it doesn't tell me either. My spellchecker thinks it's misspelt. There are more significant naming issues in this realm than sticking a seemingly redundant "of America" on the end of the name here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Basically the same reasons as last time. While "...of America" appears more often now than it did in 2022, it appears that many of the "...of America" examples are recent changes and don't reflect the sources they cite. Springee (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a long-winded nomination that really only amounts to "other countries also have National Rifle Associations". Non-US press generally refers to it exclusively as the NRA. France24 does, al-Jazeera does, the Sydney Morning Herald's "NRA" section is entirely about the US group. And there is no claim that any other organization is prominent enough to challenge the primary topic here. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, many of the arguments about usage of the name "National Rifle Association of America" are because the nom themselves changed the link text (or simplewiki article titles). This borders on a bad-faith nomination. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE: I don't recall ever encountering the longer form of the name of this organization. Pageview statistics show that all other topics listed on the disambiguation page combined get about 80 page views per day over the last two years, while this one gets about 9 times that many. 90% traffic (even when ignoring the fact that several of those other organizations don't have a name that closely resembles this one – e.g., there is no "National" in the names of the organizations in the Dominion of Canada, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad) is sufficient to indicate a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jim Baker (lobbyist)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Jim Baker (lobbyist) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § Jim Baker (lobbyist) until a consensus is reached. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

922 g Federal gun status

[edit]

The NRA has been absolutely silent about the unconstitutional. 18. 922 g1 2600:1009:B160:8E9:F87A:DFD5:BCD9:69DD (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&oldid=1259015990"