Misplaced Pages

Talk:National Rifle Association: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:32, 23 March 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,290,785 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:57, 8 December 2024 edit undoMuboshgu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators376,140 edits Suggested renaming: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=gc|style=long}}
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{controversial| }}
{{WikiProject Firearms|class=B|importance=High
{{Calm}}
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = y
{{American English}}
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
{{WikiProject Firearms|importance=High}}
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}}
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=High|gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=high}}
}} }}
{{Press | subject = article | author = Russell Brandom |title = How gun buffs took over Misplaced Pages’s AR-15 page | org = ] | url = https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting | date = March 6, 2018 | quote = WP:Firearms members rallied to defend language on the page calling the NRA “the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization,” a claim often made by the NRA and recently repeated on Fox & Friends. | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20180306185345/https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting | archivedate = March 6, 2018 | accessdate = March 7, 2018
{{WikiProject Virginia|class=B|importance=mid}}
| author2 = David Brennan
{{WikiProject United States| class = B
| title2 = Pro-gun Group Edited Ar-15 Misplaced Pages Page To Hide Mass Shootings
| importance = Mid
| listas = | org2 = ]
| url2 = http://www.newsweek.com/pro-gun-group-edited-ar-15-wikipedia-page-hide-mass-shootings-834639
}}
| date2 = March 7, 2018
{{WikiProject Organizations| class = B
| quote2 = The Verge also reported that the WP: Firearms group is involved in editing the National Rifle Association’s Misplaced Pages page.
| importance = Mid
| listas = | archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
}}
| accessdate2 = March 10, 2018 }}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gc|style=long}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive index |target=Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive index
Line 29: Line 30:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 2 |counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-11-17|oldid1=810757472}}
{{old move
| date1 = 29 March 2022
| destination1 = National Rifle Association of America
| result1 = no consensus
| link1 = Special:Permalink/1093631772#Moving article to "National Rifle Association of America"
| date2 = 22 November 2024
| destination2 = National Rifle Association of America
| result2 = not moved
| link2 = Special:Permalink/1260198089#Requested move 22 November 2024
}} }}


== Endorsements == == Jim Baker redirect ==


redirect without actual reference:
Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following...
<blockquote>National Rifle Association (redirect from Jim Baker (lobbyist))</blockquote>
:"In 2011, the organization declined an offer to discuss gun control with U.S. President Barack Obama. However, at the same time, LaPierre said that "the NRA has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto|title=N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy|last=CALMES|first=JACKIE |date=JACKIE |publisher=New York Times|accessdate=15 March 2011}}</ref>"
I removed it once after trying to find a better place for it, but it seems like a POV "I told you so" kind of comment to me. Someone has returned it. What relevance does this have in this section?


== Requested move 22 November 2024 ==
== References ==


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
{{reflist}}
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 15:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
== Notability of funding ==
----


] → {{no redirect|National Rifle Association of America}} – ]National Rifle Association is unique amongst articles relating to ] 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:
This information has recently been added to the article: "The NRA Freedom Action Foundation is a grantee of the ], a conservative ], according to ], the progressive news magazine, and ], the progressive media watchdog." There are numerous issues with this material. First, it's not even about the article's main subject--the NRA--but about an affiliated group (which perhaps needs its own article if notable enough). Second, the sourcing is incredibly flimsy. One trivial, incidental mention in a Mother Jones hit piece. And then Media Matters, which has consistently been found to be an ''un''reliable source at ]. Moreover, the material is not notable, as there's no indication of the amount or significance of the funding. It is mentioned briefly in passing. Surely there are more notable and more well-documented donors to the NRA. ] (]) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
:I don't view this as contentious as much as I view it as badly constructed. Personally I would change "grantee of" to "recipient of funds from" for starters and then fix the Wiki links. The Mother Jones one is a Disam page. As long as the nature of the source is properly identified and its potential bias is acknowledged, it seems to be acceptable and sourced content. This might be an issue for the ], but there's no need to Edit war over this in the mean time.
::Thank you for your comment; copy edited and fixed disambig. ] (]) 20:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


* Does not conform to ]
:On the other hand, if the amount of money received is relatively insignificant in relation to the NRA's overall budget, then this addition is pointless and ]. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
* Does not reflect the most common usage within WP
* Deserves re-assessment and scrutiny per ] 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.
** shows 983 indirect links (of which ) versus 906 direct links. However, some 556 of the direct links are from articles . In terms of “in-body” or “organic” wikilinks , it’s something like 983 indirect versus just 350 direct. The current title is not actually that commonly used within wikipedia.
* '''Precision:''' “National Rifle Association” is imprecise and does not unambiguously define the scope. This has caused actual errors and confusion including:
** https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arthur_Young_(police_officer)&diff=next&oldid=1059158586
** https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wellingborough_School_CCF&diff=377972454&oldid=375522019
* '''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 Misplaced Pages was more US-centric, but Misplaced Pages is now covers more global subjects and it deserves re-evaluation to ensure we are not embedding systemic bias.

'''WP:COMMONNAME'''

A ] 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 ] when opposing the move. However, this seems to be a ] 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. ]), 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:

{{Blockquote
|text=“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.
::It was apparently a donation to the "NRA Freedom Foundation," not the NRA itself, and the amount of funding is not included in the source. ] (]) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, this article includes some content related to the NRA's foundations, starting from the info box. The one sentence we are discussing was added to an existing paragraph on an NRA-related foundation. ] (]) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
::Weight is proportional to coverage in RS, not the relative weight among all funders. We don't need to find all funders and rank order them before we can mention one. Here the identification of a noteworthy funder of an NRA fund by multiple noteworthy reliable sources establishes due weight. ] (]) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


* The majority of Authority Control sources use the full “of America” including ; ; ; and .
* I consider the text in question to be a trivial example of information presently adequately summarized in the finances section. ] (]) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
:The finances section is mainly about the finances of the NRA proper. The content under discussion here is one sentence regarding an NRA-related foundation, which is identified as such in the info box, but that does not have its own article. Explicitly identifying the donor here aids the encyclopedia by increasing wikilinking. ] (]) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
*It doesn't belong. Just because someone with a point found a factoid about a NRA related topic doesn't mean it belongs in the article. And increasing wikilinking is hardly a good reason. ] (]) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
::Hugh, there is no ] to add this material. Please remove it. Your last edit summary is also disingenuous . Your addition of this material was clearly not a "copy edit." ] (]) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


COMMONNAME also suggests looking at other encyclopaedic sources to determine what titles are in an encyclopaedic ].
:{{re|Champaign Supernova}}, it was apparently $100,000 in 2011, see , on the second PDF, page 10. It appears that the NRA-FAF raised $1.9 million according to their 2011 tax return . But according to , the NRA as a whole had revenue of about $250 million in 2010. After more reading on the Donors Trust organization, it looks like they're the financial equivalent of a proxy. I concur with your assessment; I don't think the information here is WP:DUE, as it only relates to about 0.04% of their revenue, and does not seem to have been widely reported outside of the Mother Jones article and some re-blogs of that same article. ] (]) 05:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::May I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for this percent of total revenue criteria? Because my understanding is that weight is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The donor and the recipient are notable. The sources are noteworthy RS. We don't need to find all funders and rank order them before we can mention one. We are building an encyclopedia incrementally with volunteers. As it stands, the only specific donors to the NRA and its associated funds named in this article are three gun manufacturers from a FactCheck. Is that a fair summary of RS? ] (]) 14:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::*Just because there is a RS doesn't give something an express ticket to inclusion. Are we analyzing the funding of all the NRA divisions? Or even most of them? Specific industry examples might be appropriate, but trying to rope politics into the funding source discussion looks more like making a point than trying to be informative. ] (]) 17:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't think it's fair for you to push back on a fellow editor's contribution with "that edit has to be part of a comprehensive analysis." Here on WP weight is established by RS. The donor is notable. The recipient is notable. The sources are reliable and noteworthy. It belongs here. It is an improvement, albeit incremental. Better coverage of funders is a priority for this article. Right now this article names just three specific funders, three gun manufacturers. This is very obviously non-neutral with respect to the copious RS on the funding of the NRA and its foundations. We are building an encyclopedia incrementally by keeping volunteers happy. We have to start somewhere. A reminder here you have an editor new to this article trying to contribute . ] (]) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


* Encyclopaedia Britannica:
:::This is the latest version to get reverted:
* Brockhaus Enzyklopädie:
::::''The NRA Freedom Action Foundation is a recipient of funds from ], a conservative ], according to the progressive news magazine '']'', and the progressive media watchdog ].<ref name=MotherJones20130205>{{cite news |title=Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement |url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos |first=Andy |last=Kroll |date=February 5, 2013 |accessdate=February 20, 2015 |journal=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Koch-Funded News Outlet Defends Dark-Money Organizations |date=January 2, 2015 |first=Daniel |last=Angster |url=http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/02/koch-funded-news-outlet-defends-dark-money-orga/201996 |accessdate=March 8, 2015 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax |first=Whitney L. |last=Ball |url=https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/download-filing?path=2012_09_EO%2F26-2515785_990_201112.pdf |accessdate=March 8, 2015 |date=2011 |page=29}}</ref>''
* Geonames:
:::{{reflist|close}}
:::I'm not sure I see a problem with the addition of this information, though I would probably copyedit it. ] (]) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Please take a crack at it, thanks. ] (]) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Most non-English Wikipedias also use “of America” , , . ] (]) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is absurdly undue. A hundred thousand dollar contribution in a is peanuts. Just a quick google search shows many such donors in the news. Henry Rifles donated $100,000 to the foundation. Cabela's recently did the same. Presumably there are many annual $100,000 donors. Why this donor? ] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for your research. Please help improve the coverage of the funders of the NRA and its associated funds. I look forward to your contributions of new content and new reliable sources. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 20:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::That response does not address the concerns I or the other editors have raised here. (I'd also note I did include a link above.) ] (]) 20:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Capitalismojo, your link is to the NRA Foundation, not the . People tend to support - or at least not oppose - firearm safety training, but FAF aims to "educate" and register voters. That does tend to be notable. ] (]) 20:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Not so much. This is a tiny, tiny fraction of the NRA's budget and activities. A miniscule amount. It is undue in this article. Perhaps if there was a NRA FAF article it wouldn't be undue, ''perhaps''. ] (]) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I hope you are not misconstruing ]. Weight in WP is in proportional to coverage in RS, not relative to some whole. We are not required to identify all funders, and order them in descending order of dollar amount, before we can mention one funder that is highlighted in RS. Here, the donor is notable, the recipient is notable, and the references are noteworthy. ] (]) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I am not misconstruing it, thanks, nor do I think the other editors here with the same concern are. Perhaps, rather than just making a bland assertion of notability, we could have a reason(s) why this is notable and should be included. We see a minor (0.004%) anonymous donation. You believe that is inherently notable. OK. Why? ] (]) 22:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Why is not clear from my earlier comments in this thread? Sigh. The funding is notable because of ]: the donor is notable, the recipient is notable, and the reliable sources are noteworthy. On what basis do you keep coming back to the percentage thing? ] (]) 23:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::So far I've seen just the two Mother Jones articles. The NRA gets a very brief mention in passing - I'm don't think that's enough to warrant an entire paragraph. And it's absolutely undue if we end up implying that the Donors Trust organization is a major source of funding for the NRA. It isn't. ] (]) 04:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Neither the sources nor the proposed content states or implies that anything is a major funder. It just says funder. A mention in passing is a mention. Two mentions is what noteworthy looks like. Most of the content in this article has one source. I don't think it's fair for you to say to a fellow editor, look, this article is so pathetic at identifying funders that I'm sorry but your attempt to remedy that is just too incremental to be taken seriously. ] (]) 04:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od|12}}It's trivial. Something like six or seven editors here have disagreed with this inclusion. Perhaps that might indicate something. ] (]) 20:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:Based purely on votes, it's 6 to 2, I think. I haven't been convinced by the opposing arguments, but {{u|HughD}}, I suggest you change your tack here and include material about dark-money contributions to the NRA to help influence elections... in the "Elections" section, rather than this $100K donation that the other editors think doesn't belong in the "Finances" section (subsection sources below). ] (]) 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
::*When did this become "dark money"? The NRA is usually pretty straight forward about who they endorse. If Donor Trust gives to the NRA but doesn't tell them who gave it to them and the NRA discloses that it gives it to a candidate, that's not dark money. We know it came from the NRA and what their intentions are. ] (]) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for the suggestion. How is the original post sentence above a better fit under "Elections?" It is a grant to an NRA fund. Doesn't it fit in better in conjunction with another sentence about the finances of another NRA fund? Is the FAF a PAC? Thanks again. ] (]) 20:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The original would not fit well under elections. However, the bigger picture your attempt to post this item uncovered is that the article is missing information about how the NRA influences elections through its Freedom Action Foundation (in this case), which has received funds from Donors Trust (as your source shows) as well as Clayton Williams, the Koch Brothers, and August A. Busch III (as sources below show). ] (]) 21:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


:What has changed since your last move request 2 years ago? ] (]) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
===Elections subsection or Finances subsection===
::* Increasing globalisation, which deserves re-assessment - ]. 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.
Maybe, instead of being in the Finances subsection of "Organizational structure and finances" there should be a bit it the Elections subsection of "Political activity"? After all, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation is about influencing elections. Here are some sources:
::* Declining usage of the current title vs. the "of America" redirect for in-body wikilinks. In a similar vein, NRA ] from being a redirect, since additional global "NRAs" meant "National Rifle Association" (of America) no longer met the criteria for Primary Topic.
*{{cite news |last=Gonyea |first=Don |date=May 17, 2010 |title=NRA Looks To Build On Tea Party Movement |url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126877728 |publisher=NPR |location= |access-date= |quote=Remember the MTV campaign to get young people to the polls called 'Rock the Vote'? Norris is the honorary chairman of a new NRA ad campaign called 'Trigger the Vote.'}}
::* 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 ] 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.
*{{cite news |last=Norris |first=Chuck |date=September 21, 2010 |title=Trigger The Vote! |url=http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2010/09/21/trigger_the_vote!/page/full |type=Column |publisher=Townhall.com |location= |access-date= }}
::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.
*{{cite news |last=Beckel |first=Michael |date=January 11, 2011 |title=After Arizona Shooting, Gun Control Advocates Push For New Restrictions |url=http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/01/after-arizona-shooting-gun-control/ |publisher=Center for Responsive Politics |location= |access-date= }}
::] (]) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite news |last=Sands |first=Geneva |date=February 15, 2012 |title='Full Metal Jacket' actor urges supporters to 'trigger the vote' in NRA campaign |url=http://thehill.com/video/campaign/210821-gunny-urges-supporters-to-trigger-the-vote-in-nra-campaign |newspaper=The Hill |location= |access-date= |quote=The ad, which is part of the NRA's multimillion-dollar campaign, will air in select states across the country in a six-figure media buy, according to Cox.}}
:::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 Misplaced Pages 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{{ping|Chaheel_Riens|HiLo48|Bobsd|Muboshgu}}. ] (]) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite news |last=Stone |first=Peter H. |date=April 10, 2012 |title=NRA, Ralph Reed group plan get-out-the-vote efforts |url=http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/04/10/8633/nra-ralph-reed-group-plan-get-out-vote-efforts |publisher=Center for Public Integrity |location= |access-date= |quote='This election is going to be won on the ground,' said Chris Cox, the top lobbyist for NRA which has recently launched what appears to be its biggest registration drive ever with a multimillion-dollar price tag.... Most of the voter registration funding comes from the NRA’s Freedom Action Foundation, a nonprofit arm that doesn’t have to disclose its donors, Cox said. The Center has reported that one prominent foundation donor is Texas energy magnate Clayton Williams, who last year boasted at a Houston luncheon that drew top NRA officials, that he gave $1 million to the foundation in 2010 and intended to do so again in 2012.}}
::::'''Can you provide evidence for those claims?'''
*{{cite news |last=Hirschkorn |first=Phil |date=April 14, 2012 |title=Gun enthusiasts unite at NRA convention |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-enthusiasts-unite-at-nra-convention/ |publisher=CBS Interactive |location= |access-date= }}
::::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''.
*{{cite news |last=Stone |first=Peter H. |date=June 1, 2012 |title=Koch Brothers Plan To Funnel Tens Of Millions To Conservative Allies To Influence 2012 Elections |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/koch-brothers-network_n_1560596.html |publisher=Huffington Post |location= |access-date= }}
::::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.
*{{cite journal |last=Stone |first=Peter |date=April 2, 2013 |title=Inside the NRA's Koch-Funded Dark-Money Campaign |url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/nra-koch-brothers-karl-rove |journal=Mother Jones |publisher= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |access-date=}}
::::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". ] (]) 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite news |last=Camia |first=Catalina |date=July 23, 2014 |title=NRA kicks off voter registration drive with provocative ad |url=http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/07/23/nra-guns-voter-registration-chuck-norris/ |newspaper=USA Today |location= |access-date= |quote=... the NRA is seeking to register as many voters as it can and to get its grass-roots network involved to counter former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plans to spend $50 million to motivate voters.}}
:::::How many of the examples of ] are ones you added/changed from ]? The first one I investigated is the link from ]'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 . 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. ] (]) 15:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{cite web |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=August 13, 2014 |title=National Rifle Association's Freedom Action Foundation Presents Chuck Norris’ Top Ten Reasons to Register to Vote |url=https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/20140813/national-rifle-associations-freedom-action-foundation-presents-chuck-norris-top-ten-reasons-to-register-to-vote |publisher=National Rifle Association, Political Victory Fund |location=Fairfax, Virginia |access-date= |quote=The video addresses a cause close to Chuck Norris’s heart - protecting our Second Amendment rights - and counts down his top ten reasons to register to vote in both humorous and serious tones. The individual reasons have been broken down into fifteen-second ads and will run online as part of a 7-digit paid media buy by NRA-FAF.}}
:::'''AGREE''' with changing to '''National Rifle Association of America'''
*{{cite news |last=Lavender |first=Paige |date=August 13, 2014 |title=Chuck Norris In NRA Ad: Register To Vote 'Because I Said So' |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/chuck-norris-nra-ad_n_5674915.html |publisher=Huffington Post |location= |access-date= }}
:::My opinion has not changed since two years ago:
*{{cite news |last=Fessler |first=Pam |date=September 18, 2014 |title=Ads Get Creative, Even Seductive, To Attract Voters |url=http://www.npr.org/2014/09/18/349330682/ads-get-creative-even-seductive-to-attract-voters |publisher=NPR |location= |access-date= }}
:::] is applicable in this case, because we '''already have''' additional articles with the text "National Rifle Association" so for '''precision''' and '''consistency''', I think the article should be moved, and let the disambiguation page do its thing.
*{{cite interview |subject=August A. Busch III |subject-link=August Busch III |interviewer=Chris W. Cox |title=One-on-One with August A. Busch III |type= |url=http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/16462/political-report-44/ |format= |date= |year= |page= |pages= |access-date= |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url= |quote=}}
:::* '''Precision''' – The title '''unambiguously identifies the article's subject''' and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See ], below.)
--] (]) 21:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:::* '''Consistency''' – The title is '''consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.'''
:::Here are the current Misplaced Pages articles containing the text "National Rifle Association" .
:::They all contain the country name, which makes sense since '''"National"''' needs to point to '''"which nation" <u>as soon as there is more than one.</u>'''
:::What can possibly wrong with being MORE accurate AND consistent ???
:::: ] ''Note: we don't have to use the full name ... because "we" are America? :)''
:::: ]
:::: ]
:::: ]
:::: ]
:::: ]
:::: ]
:::Here is Britannica:
:::* includes: National Rifle Association of America: …'''NRA was modeled after the National Rifle Association in Great Britain,''' which had been formed in 1859.
:::* National Rifle Association of America (NRA), leading gun rights organization in the United States. The NRA was founded as a governing body ...
:::Here is the copyright notice on the bottom of every webpage at the www.nra.org (where you need to be accurate for © )
:::© 2024 National Rifle Association of America.
:::<span style="border-radius:9em;background:#88ff00">] </span>(]) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Nothing has changed since the discussion two years ago. "National Rifle Association" is the ] in press reports. It is more ] without "of America", and is ] enough without the extra disambiguation. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Why doesn't this apply?
*:'''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.''' ] (]) 15:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Because it's not ambiguous or inaccurate. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::It literally is ambiguous, and I have provided examples where users have wikilinked to the wrong article! Moreover, global notability has diluted enough that it lost PT on ]. There are also far more articles linking to the full "...of America" redirect than the base title (by a ~3:1 ratio, excluding the Conservatism US template). The current title is inconsistent & imprecise - unless we're contending that all the major Authority Control sources and third party encyclopaedias are wrong, or excessively pedantic? It feels like a Seymour Skinner "no, the children are wrong" position to be in! ] (]) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::How many of those are articles that you changed? ] (]) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I'm not sure if this link will look the same for everyone but I selected the "...of America" (see ''(of which 962 are the "of America" redirect)'' above). I then selected 500 entries per page, selected the second page then reviewed the first 15 articles listed. All 15 were recently changed, after the 2022 move request, to link to "...of America" vs without. I think it's safe to say very few articles were originally written as "of America". It's only a question of how many. Most of the articles are about Americans so the NRA context would be clear. In every case I checked, which wasn't many, the source didn't specify "of America". Sometime it just said NRA. ] (]) 17:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@Muboshgu, Actually, here are the stats from a google search:
*:"National Rifle Assocation" = 2,470,000
*:"NRA" = 43,800,000
*:By your criteria of frequency used in the cloud, the name of the article should be changed to "NRA"
*:<span style="border-radius:9em;background:#88ff00">] </span>(]) 19:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


:I support the change mainly because I can not see any downside to being more '''accurate '''in the naming of the article. Yes, most people in the US and even globally refer to the organization as the "NRA", or less commonly take the time to say "National Rifle Association" , and fewer still would get out the mouthful "National Rifle Association of America" ... unless the person being addressed was confused, and qualification was needed. Say when speaking to someone in the UK. We are not supposed to be US-centric. So why not just be accurate and call the article by the same name that the organization itself uses?
*Perhaps, as has been suggested, the FAF should be a separate article. ] (]) 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:When someone visits Misplaced Pages, and starts typing "National Rifle Association ..." all the articles will show in the list, and they can choose from there. No problem. Also consider, if we are stuck on the most commonly found reference to the organization, that would be "NRA" So why are those opposed to making the title more accurate, not pushing for changing the title to "NRA", which as a search term, doesn't even pull up the any of the National Rifle Association articles.
**It's not notable/undue for this article - but it might be notable for it's own article? I think a paragraph in the Elections subsection is due, but that there probably isn't enough at this time to justify its own article. ] (]) 21:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:I'm a retired CSQE where more accurate (less ambiguous) was never considered a problem in any way ... ambiguous requirements gets you planes falling out of the sky. Almost every point @] has made seems to be met with a '''''yes, but''''' ] and ] without addressing why they should have priority over ] and ].
::*You act like the suggestion is unheard of. Want an example? Talking about the available transmissions of Ford Mustangs in the parent article about Ford Motor Company would be a matter of something not notable being placed into the Ford article. However, it would be completely reasonable to put it into a separate article about the Mustang. The suggestions is for an article on the FAF, not an article on the finances of the FAF. Please don't pretend like you didn't know this. ] (]) 22:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:I have nothing more I feel I can add to this discussion. <span style="border-radius:9em;background:#88ff00">] </span>(]) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::*Please don't make this personal with "you" statements; keep it on content, not contributor. ] (]) 22:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}* '''Oppose''' I believe that nothing has fundamentally changed since the same editor proposed the same change back in 2022 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 {{tpq|mainly engaged involved editors}} - I've only ever edited the article to revert vandalism. ] (]) 16:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::*I'm responding to YOU, concerning something YOU said. The use of YOU is perfectly appropriate and not a matter of commenting on the contributor. Calm down. ] (]) 22:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
* '''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 ] 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 - ], 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. ] (]) 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::*Calm yourself. Your comment would have been ''completely'' about content if you'd omitted the first two sentences and the last sentence. With those sentences, it was about more than content. ] (]) 23:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
*:Thankyou for your comment on ] - I have added a line describing the actual discipline to the lead of that article.
:::::::*If you don't act like the suggestion is unheard of, I won't make the observation that you're acting like it's unheard of. And now asking if you'd like an example is offensive? Wow, ''you'' are getting touchy. I'll admit, the last sentence was iffy. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and presumed that you were just pretending to not understand that 3 people have suggested a separate article about the FAF. I apologize for not realizing that you weren't pretending. Now, if you're done trying to divert attention, can you get back to the actual discussion? ] (]) 23:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
*:However, the rest of the comment seems a bit strange. To say you have "never heard of another NRA" is just ]. There are many organisations with the initials "]" that I have no knowledge of, but they exist - and the articles get enough traffic that the NRA of America is no longer PRIMARYTOPIC for "NRA"! For many Australians - whether they are shooters, firearms licensing officers, or simply involved in sports administration/governance at some level, any discussion of "NRA" or "the National Rifle Association" will be a shorthand for the NRA of Australia - because what would the NRA of America have to do with Australian sport?
:::It is natural and common that an article gestate within a parent. For now, from the infobox on down this is THE article for the NRA and its associated funds and foundations. I'm sure everyone wants to avoid a POV fork. As the content related to a particular fund or foundation gets heavier, I would support a fork, but we are a long way off in the near future. ] (]) 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
*:Just because you ''personally'' are most familiar with the National Rifle Association of America does not invalidate the concerns over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY. Personal familiarity should not come into this when we have objective criteria against which to judge the matter. Nor does it prevent "National Rifle Association" redirecting to a correctly titled article as PRIMARYTOPIC.
*:It is very strange that we are setting ourselves in opposition to ''every major encyclopaedia'', as well as authority sources like VIAF, the USLOC and the Library of Australia! ] (]) 10:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


*'''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. ] (]) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
===Reliability of Business Insider source===
* '''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. ] (]) 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
After reading the Business Insider article , I'm pretty iffy about using it as a source.
** 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. ] (]) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:'''"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."'''
*:WP:COMMONAME is explicit that even reliable press usage of ambiguous names should not overrule PRECISION and CONSISTENCY. Basically all Authority Control and other encyclopaedias use the full and proper name. What is your line of reasoning is for opposing established policy? This is basically why I reopened the discussion - the realisation that people handwaving "oh, but COMMONNAME" were actually not applying the policy correctly. ] (]) 10:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ], ] and ]: I don't recall ever encountering the longer form of the name of this organization. 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 . 90% traffic (even when ignoring the fact that several of those other organizations don't have a name that closely resembles this one{{snd}} 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 ]. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 22:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:As far as PRIMARYTOPIC goes, I have no problem with "National Rifle Association" redirecting to "of America". I am not proposing we move "National Rifle Association (disambiguation)" to "National Rifle Association".
*:But why should CONCISE take priority over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY? Perhaps made sense when there was only one NRA article but there are now many. It's unclear why COMMONNAME should apply - if I hand you a book titled "History of the National Rifle Association", you will not know which NRA it discusses. You might ''suspect'' it will be the US entity, but you won't ''know'' - it is ambiguous. COMMONNAME caveats itself in cases of ambiguity - and Authority Controls and titles like Britannica clearly show the encyclopaedic register is to use the full name. ] (]) 09:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - ], in the last proposal it was noted that you were heading towards ] territory and what that entailed. You're doing exactly the same thing here. There's no need to constantly respond to comments, effectively saying the same thing each time just in different ways, and it can have the opposite effect you desire. ] (]) 07:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I'm British. We have our own National Rifle Association, But I'd still think of the American one if I heard the name. Very clear common name and primary topic. -- ] (]) 12:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
1) The author makes several factual errors:
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>
:a) It's "Cabela's", not "Cabalas"
:b) It's "Sturm, Ruger" not "Sturm, Rugar"
:c) He states, in 2013, that "Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions".


== "]" listed at ] ==
2) does not appear to be a real journalist. Other contributions include stories like "The 10 Governors You Absolutely Have To Watch In 2013" and "24 Charts That Show How People Talk Totally Differently On Facebook As They Get Older". His final contribution to the website was "19 Famous Thomas Jefferson 'Quotes' That He Actually Never Said At All".
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Jim Baker (lobbyist)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== 922 g Federal gun status ==
I've pulled it for now and put in a Citation Needed tag. I've also pulled the reference to the NSSF - the way the sentence is phrased '''strongly''' implies (in a way I feel violates WP:DUE's policy on placement of facts) that the NRA gets over 50% of its funding from the industry. "Contributions" includes member contributions, and the NRA is famous (notorious?) for asking its members for far more than their yearly membership dues. ] (]) 05:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
*I think the guy is likely a "real" journalist, but he is a prime example of how sloppy some sources are and then years later someone will be saying "it's in a reliable source" on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
*Hickey is a real journalist, though obviously his editor could have done a better job of checking the piece's spelling of "Cabela" and "Ruger." The Ruger 1 Million Challenge to Benefit the NRA ran from (according to Ruger) April 2011 through March 2012 and made $1.253 million(s), as you say. That's not thousands. Perhaps he didn't have Ruger's final total to report? Even so, the statement - ''which isn't quoted in our article'' - is true. ] (]) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
::I seriously doubt he has an editor. And "millions" means 2 million or more. And the program ended in 2012. In the article he talks about it in the present tense. The statement is false on two counts. I would hope we could find a better source for this topic than a clickbait blogger. ] (]) 03:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


The NRA has been absolutely silent about the unconstitutional. 18. 922 g1 ] (]) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Discussion of wording of opening paragraph of Finances section ==
:What do RS say? ] (]) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


:An article's talk page exists to discuss how to improve the article. This just sounds like a general complaint that the subject of the article hasn't pushed for your position on {{USCSub|18|922|g|1}} (felon disarmament). ]&nbsp;] 00:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The paragraph was, for months:
:''Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.<ref name=Hickey130116>{{cite news |last=Hickey |first=Walter |date=2013-01-16 |title=How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1 |newspaper= |location= |publisher=Business Insider |accessdate=2014-06-05 }}</ref> According to the ] (NSSF), the industry has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."<ref name=NSSF2014>{{cite web |url=http://www.nssf.org/about/ |title=Firearms Industry Trade Association: NSSF |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2014 |website=nssf.org |publisher=National Shooting Sports Foundation |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20140211091604/http://www.nssf.org/about/ |archivedate=2014-02-11 |deadurl=no |accessdate=2014-06-05}}</ref>''
Although the url to the first source was wrong, so I fixed it here, and restored the paragraph after Faceless Enemy's deletion. It, or part of it, has been deleted a couple times since then for less-than-convincing reasons.


== Suggested renaming ==
I have edited it thusly, and I hope that will clear up any objections, otherwise, I propose ].
:''Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.<ref name="Hickey130116"/> A considerable amount comes from the gun industry itself,<ref name="Hickey130116"/> which the ] (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."<ref name=NSSF2014/>''
{{reflist|close}}
--] (]) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


I suggest that this page could be renamed to the ‘National Rifle Association of America’, the organisation’s actual and legally registered name. This would reflect the organisation’s geographic relevance, and allow for a clearer and more efficient search. The current name would then be freed for the British NRA, which is simply legally recognised as the ‘National Rifle Association’, due to it being the original and first NRA in existence. While I’m
:I strongly disagree with the edit summary provided on the recent revert, "unnecessary, preceding sentence is clear and straightforward" that those two sentence adequately summarize reliable sources regarding the funding of the NRA and its associated funds and foundations. Of course those two sentences are so artfully general, encompassing dues, fees, contributions, grants, royalties, advertising, and gun manufacturers, all in ONE sentence, so as to in some sense say it all! Of course this is grossly non-neutral with respect to the copious detail in reliable sources regarding the funding of the NRA & friends. Better balance of this article with RS on funding is a top priority in approaching neutrality. We need more content and more reliable sources in this important section. ] (]) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
sure in terms of relevance and effort involved people will clearly disagree with this, but I firmly believe that this would be a logical change, reflecting the respective organisations legal names. The redirect of NRA will still obviously go to the redirect page, so this would have no effect on traffic. ] (]) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Strong agree that we need to make it clear where the funding comes from. Right now I think we are implying that the gun industry makes up a majority or a plurality of their funding. It doesn't. But I agree that it is also important not to downplay their funding. I think a table with percentages and dollar amounts for the most recent year for which RS are available would really make things clear for the readers in a factual and easy-to-read way. As an added bonus, it would hopefully be relatively easy to reach consensus on. ] (]) 23:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
*Lightbreather, interesting that you want to title this section "edit war". Couldn't that "edit war" be avoided if you simply discussed it here to see if there was consensus first? ] (]) 00:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah...I don't feel it's an edit war either. ] (]) 00:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::I calls 'em like a see 'em, that's all. But at any rate, we seem to be making some progress now. ] (]) 00:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


:Do you see ]? That discussion closed nine days ago. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::How about changing "considerable amount" to "portion" to remove of uncertainty of how much/little/majority/minority. The source says "Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million" which makes it hard to apply any math to a specific year in order to say "considerable". This is starting to border on ] and hint of POV. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 03:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Agreed, "significant amount" feels like we're editorializing in the encyclopedia's voice. "Portion" is both accurate and neutral. ] (]) 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::The source also says "much of it originating from gun industry sources." A synonym for "much" is "considerable," which is more specific than "portion." ] (]) 03:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::And "portion" is just plain neutral. We shouldn't be trying to interpolate the source, just paraphrase it. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 03:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Look up "much" in a thesaurus and tell me if "considerable" or "portion" is a closer in MEANING. ] (]) 04:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Why paraphrase such a poorly researched source? ] (]) 04:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::That's good point, we're trying to use a single source with somewhat vague wording to establish a particular point. I don't think its a surprise to ''anyone'' that a political organization gets funding from the industry it represent, this isn't really a novel or shocking concept. And that's really all that this wording indicates. At the end of the day, the NRA still represents current and potential gun owners. All levels and facets of any industry need consumers, plain and simple. No surprise here, just really basic economics. Now we're just back to a "quality of writing" issue. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 15:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::If it's no surprise that a political org gets funding from an industry that it represents, then let's quit trying to remove this information. On the other hand, if you have a good RS that puts it into a better perspective, perhaps with more details about the breakdown of its funding sources, that would merit due inclusion, too. ] (]) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:57, 8 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rifle Association article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFirearms High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconVirginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconUnited States Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American / Gun politics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 17, 2017.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Jim Baker redirect

redirect without actual reference:

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

Requested move 22 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


National Rifle AssociationNational 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 Misplaced Pages was more US-centric, but Misplaced Pages 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)

What has changed since your last move request 2 years ago? "National_Rifle_Association_of_America" Springee (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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 . 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)
AGREE with changing to National Rifle Association of America
My opinion has not changed since two years ago:
WP:CRITERIA is applicable in this case, because we already have additional articles with the text "National Rifle Association" so for precision and consistency, I think the article should be moved, and let the disambiguation page do its thing.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
Here are the current Misplaced Pages articles containing the text "National Rifle Association" .
They all contain the country name, which makes sense since "National" needs to point to "which nation" as soon as there is more than one.
What can possibly wrong with being MORE accurate AND consistent ???
National Rifle Association Note: we don't have to use the full name ... because "we" are America? :)
National Rifle Association (United Kingdom)
National Rifle Association of Norway
National Rifle Association of India
National Rifle Association of New Zealand
National Rifle Association of Australia
National Rifle Association of Pakistan
Here is Britannica:
Here is the copyright notice on the bottom of every webpage at the www.nra.org (where you need to be accurate for © )
© 2024 National Rifle Association of America.
 • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing has changed since the discussion two years ago. "National Rifle Association" is the WP:COMMONNAME in press reports. It is more WP:CONCISE without "of America", and is WP:PRECISE enough without the extra disambiguation. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Why doesn't this apply?
    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. Hemmers (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Because it's not ambiguous or inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    It literally is ambiguous, and I have provided examples where users have wikilinked to the wrong article! Moreover, global notability has diluted enough that it lost PT on NRA. There are also far more articles linking to the full "...of America" redirect than the base title (by a ~3:1 ratio, excluding the Conservatism US template). The current title is inconsistent & imprecise - unless we're contending that all the major Authority Control sources and third party encyclopaedias are wrong, or excessively pedantic? It feels like a Seymour Skinner "no, the children are wrong" position to be in! Hemmers (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    How many of those are articles that you changed? Springee (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if this link will look the same for everyone but I selected the "...of America" (see (of which 962 are the "of America" redirect) above). I then selected 500 entries per page, selected the second page then reviewed the first 15 articles listed. All 15 were recently changed, after the 2022 move request, to link to "...of America" vs without. I think it's safe to say very few articles were originally written as "of America". It's only a question of how many. Most of the articles are about Americans so the NRA context would be clear. In every case I checked, which wasn't many, the source didn't specify "of America". Sometime it just said NRA. Springee (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Muboshgu, Actually, here are the stats from a google search:
    "National Rifle Assocation" = 2,470,000
    "NRA" = 43,800,000
    By your criteria of frequency used in the cloud, the name of the article should be changed to "NRA"
     • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I support the change mainly because I can not see any downside to being more accurate in the naming of the article. Yes, most people in the US and even globally refer to the organization as the "NRA", or less commonly take the time to say "National Rifle Association" , and fewer still would get out the mouthful "National Rifle Association of America" ... unless the person being addressed was confused, and qualification was needed. Say when speaking to someone in the UK. We are not supposed to be US-centric. So why not just be accurate and call the article by the same name that the organization itself uses?
When someone visits Misplaced Pages, and starts typing "National Rifle Association ..." all the articles will show in the list, and they can choose from there. No problem. Also consider, if we are stuck on the most commonly found reference to the organization, that would be "NRA" So why are those opposed to making the title more accurate, not pushing for changing the title to "NRA", which as a search term, doesn't even pull up the any of the National Rifle Association articles.
I'm a retired CSQE where more accurate (less ambiguous) was never considered a problem in any way ... ambiguous requirements gets you planes falling out of the sky. Almost every point @Hemmers has made seems to be met with a yes, but WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE without addressing why they should have priority over WP:PRECISION and WP:CONSISTENT.
I have nothing more I feel I can add to this discussion.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
* 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)
  • 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)
    Thankyou for your comment on Fullbore rifle - I have added a line describing the actual discipline to the lead of that article.
    However, the rest of the comment seems a bit strange. To say you have "never heard of another NRA" is just WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT. There are many organisations with the initials "NRA" that I have no knowledge of, but they exist - and the articles get enough traffic that the NRA of America is no longer PRIMARYTOPIC for "NRA"! For many Australians - whether they are shooters, firearms licensing officers, or simply involved in sports administration/governance at some level, any discussion of "NRA" or "the National Rifle Association" will be a shorthand for the NRA of Australia - because what would the NRA of America have to do with Australian sport?
    Just because you personally are most familiar with the National Rifle Association of America does not invalidate the concerns over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY. Personal familiarity should not come into this when we have objective criteria against which to judge the matter. Nor does it prevent "National Rifle Association" redirecting to a correctly titled article as PRIMARYTOPIC.
    It is very strange that we are setting ourselves in opposition to every major encyclopaedia, as well as authority sources like VIAF, the USLOC and the Library of Australia! Hemmers (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    "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."
    WP:COMMONAME is explicit that even reliable press usage of ambiguous names should not overrule PRECISION and CONSISTENCY. Basically all Authority Control and other encyclopaedias use the full and proper name. What is your line of reasoning is for opposing established policy? This is basically why I reopened the discussion - the realisation that people handwaving "oh, but COMMONNAME" were actually not applying the policy correctly. Hemmers (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
    As far as PRIMARYTOPIC goes, I have no problem with "National Rifle Association" redirecting to "of America". I am not proposing we move "National Rifle Association (disambiguation)" to "National Rifle Association".
    But why should CONCISE take priority over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY? Perhaps made sense when there was only one NRA article but there are now many. It's unclear why COMMONNAME should apply - if I hand you a book titled "History of the National Rifle Association", you will not know which NRA it discusses. You might suspect it will be the US entity, but you won't know - it is ambiguous. COMMONNAME caveats itself in cases of ambiguity - and Authority Controls and titles like Britannica clearly show the encyclopaedic register is to use the full name. Hemmers (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hemmers, in the last proposal it was noted that you were heading towards WP:BADGER territory and what that entailed. You're doing exactly the same thing here. There's no need to constantly respond to comments, effectively saying the same thing each time just in different ways, and it can have the opposite effect you desire. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm British. We have our own National Rifle Association, But I'd still think of the American one if I heard the name. Very clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § Jim Baker (lobbyist) until a consensus is reached. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

922 g Federal gun status

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)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
An article's talk page exists to discuss how to improve the article. This just sounds like a general complaint that the subject of the article hasn't pushed for your position on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon disarmament). SilverLocust 💬 00:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggested renaming

I suggest that this page could be renamed to the ‘National Rifle Association of America’, the organisation’s actual and legally registered name. This would reflect the organisation’s geographic relevance, and allow for a clearer and more efficient search. The current name would then be freed for the British NRA, which is simply legally recognised as the ‘National Rifle Association’, due to it being the original and first NRA in existence. While I’m sure in terms of relevance and effort involved people will clearly disagree with this, but I firmly believe that this would be a logical change, reflecting the respective organisations legal names. The redirect of NRA will still obviously go to the redirect page, so this would have no effect on traffic. J.Weir3 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you see #Requested move 22 November 2024? That discussion closed nine days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: