Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:48, 11 March 2015

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Endorsements

Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following...

"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.""

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?

References

1. CALMES, JACKIE (JACKIE). "N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy". New York Times. Retrieved 15 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Civil rights organization

I realize what the NRA calls itself and that others have used this phrase as well, but this source seems to have a decent analysis of the issue...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/05/harry-alford/nra-founded-fight-kkk-black-leader-says/

Anyone know if the source is credible and/or WP:RS? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That article seems to be a red herring to me. Isn't the "civil rights organization" appellation based on the fact that gun ownership is considered a civil right (by the NRA at least) because that right is enumerated in the Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment? The NRA's main political activity is to defend second amendment rights; therefore, it considers itself a civil rights organization. Deli nk (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of why the NRA (and other gun-rights groups) calls itself a civil rights group is the same as what Deli nk has said: because they think that owning a gun is civil right.

As for the citation given, it doesn't even say that Alford said that the NRA is a civil rights group. It says that he said, "I want to thank the Lord for our Constitution. I also want to thank the NRA for its legacy. The National Rifle Association was started, founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan." For argument's sake, if he had said, "The NRA is a civil rights group," that wouldn't be supported by the sources given (by Alford's wife). Lightbreather (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; the basis for them being a civil rights group is that they say gun rights are civil rights, not that they defended African-Americans' gun rights. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to support the NRA's claim, but offer up a source on what other's think of the claim and put it in context. Right now the article just says that other organizations claim similar standing, but without context. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was worried someone was thinking of re-categorizing it as a civil rights organization. I actually don't think the whole notion of whether it is or isn't a civil rights group deserves much space in the article, as sources don't seem to waste much ink or many pixels talking about it - do they? Lightbreather (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So it makes sense to remove "The National Rifle Association says it is "America's longest-standing civil rights organization"; the National Association of the Deaf and the NAACP make similar claims." altogether from the Political activity section? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. The thing is, if you remove it, will someone come along in "x" weeks or months and put it (the first part) back in without the second part? Maybe just add a brief sentence that says some question whether it's a civil rights group - and leave it at that? Lightbreather (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I think that statement should remain. It is properly framed as "The National Rifle Association says" and doesn't belabor the point. It seems to give proper weight to the claim, and provides counter claims. The inclusion of those brief balanced statements are a net benefit to the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, but now we're back to my original point. If it stays, saying that other organizations claim the same thing is pointless; why have the claim if its not verifiably unique? And if its framed properly, why is a counter claim needed at all? The source I found presents analysis of the statement by the NRA.

Otherwise, my other suggestion is that we move the phrase to the Infobox as a "slogan" or something similar and then delete the body text altogether. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Report the claim, just don't act as if it's true by putting the NRA in the civil rights category. Felsic (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we're past that issue, no one seems to support having the category. We've moved on to how the phrase/claim should be presented. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

The subject is the first two sentences of a larger pargraph. These are the sentences:

The National Rifle Association says it is "America's longest-standing civil rights organization"; the National Association of the Deaf and the NAACP make similar claims.

Why not break it into its own paragraph, and have it end with something like:

Some supporters agree that it is a civil rights group, others disagree.

I don't think there is a preponderance of high-quality RS that can be cited to support that it is a civil rights group, only that it and some of its supporters think it is.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This source puts the general view pretty well, I think:

NRA is also, historically, an advocacy group for gun owners. From the NRA's point of view, owning a gun is a basic civil right, and therefore the NRA is a civil rights group...."

Emphasis mine. Lightbreather (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1. "NRA Digital Network". nra.org. National Rifle Association. Archived from the original on 2014-05-29. Retrieved 2014-05-30. The National Rifle Association is America's longest-standing civil rights organization.
2. Froman, Sandy (2007-04-12). "NRA: The largest civil-rights group ever". WND.com. Retrieved 2013-07-19. ...the National Rifle Association of America is the oldest and largest civil-rights organization in the history of the United States. Froman was president of the NRA.
3. "NAD is the Oldest Civil Rights Organization in the USA!". nad.org. National Association of the Deaf. 2014-01-30. Archived from the original on 2014-02-10. Retrieved 2014-05-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
4. "NAACP: 100 Years of History". naacp.org. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 2009. Archived from the original on 2010-08-12. Retrieved 2014-05-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
5. Kertscher, Tom (2013-06-05). "NRA founded to fight KKK, black leader says". Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
6. Horwitz, Josh (2014-05-08). "NRA is no civil rights organization". Indianapolis Star (Opinion).
7. Giffords, Gabrielle; Kelly, Mark (2014). Enough: Our Fight to Keep America Safe from Gun Violence. Simon and Schuster. p. 149. ISBN 9781476750118.

Wow, I'm not sure that ending could get any more weasel wordy IMO. I can appreciate what you trying to do, but if we are going to quote the motto, we need to state the status plainly and factually what the NRA claims is it basis for that. I still believe the NAACP and the NAD should just be left out of it as being irrelevant.

From the 1870s to the 1930s, they promoted firearm proficiency. Then in the 30s they started to address other issues such as legislation. Somewhere in their they also started to address hunting and conservation issues. Then later on firearm safety, civilian rights advocacy, and general industry promotion were added.

The NRA is (and has been) many things and trying to boil it down to one item or a simple two word description like "gun rights" is a disservice to our Readers. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Some supporters agree that it is a civil rights group, others disagree" is weasel wordy? Or do you mean the Giffords/Kelly quote? I wasn't suggesting putting that in the article. Just this:

The National Rifle Association says it is "America's longest-standing civil rights organization"; the National Association of the Deaf and the NAACP make similar claims. Some supporters agree that the NRA is a civil rights group, others disagree.

As for a few words, in addition to "gun rights," "marksmanship" and "gun safety training" would both be appropriate. Lightbreather (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Government and non-profit classification

I did some checking and its not just the NRA's "opinion" that what they do is civil rights related, but its an actual classification. There's a Category system call the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities that is used to sort the various non-profits. The Guidestar website database lists the categories that the NRA occupies which are R01 and R60, "Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy - Alliance/Advocacy Organizations" and "Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy - Civil Liberties Advocacy" respectively.

It would seem that the issue now is how the NRA came to have this classification. Was it determined by the IRS or some other government agency or did the NRA select these when the system was created in the 1990s? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's a classification that organizations assign themselves (having presided over a nonprofit in the past). Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, got a source for that? The page I linked to says staff within the IRS assigned the categories originally.

"In the mid-1990s, the IRS decided to begin classifying new organizations using the NTEE system. The "IRS determination specialists" -- the individuals who decide whether or not an organization is eligible to receive federal tax exempt status -- would classify the organizations based on descriptive data in the organizations' applications for recognition of tax-exempt status (Forms 1023 and 1024)".

Based on this and assuming the already existing organizations went through a similar determination, the U.S. government seems to agree with the NRA's description of itself. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

would classify the organizations based on descriptive data in the organizations' applications for recognition of tax-exempt status I dunno.

You and I seem to be at an impasse, so I'm pinging the editors who were discussing this "civil rights" notion with us yesterday. @Deli nk, Faceless Enemy, Edgar181, and Felsic: Could you chime in on 1. My suggestion (scroll up), and 2. Scalhotrod's interpretation of IRS classifications as a source for an organization's "focus" in the infobox? Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1) The wording of suggested sentence "Some supporters agree that it is a civil rights group, others disagree" implies that some supporters disagree, but I don't think that is intended or correct. How about "The NRA views itself as a civil rights group, but some others disagree"? 2) From the information presented above (I have no idea whether it is the complete story) it does seem that the US government has made the determination to classify the NRA as a civil rights organization. Deli nk (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The government makes all kinds of determinations. That don't mean we're supposed to report 'em all. According to this link it looks like all gun control and gun rights organizations would be in the same category. You gonna add this to every article?

The idea that the NRA is a "civil rights group" is so far out of the mainstream that nobody even bothers to disagree. The sources are just other groups claiming to be the oldest civil rights group. Stick with the main claim - that the NRA is the oldest and that others make the same claim for themselves. It was fine before. Felsic (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod threatened to take me before an admin if I didn't self-revert these edits (changing "civil rights" and "right to keep and bear arms" to "gun rights") so I have reverted them. Lightbreather (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to revert your edits until this discussion had concluded or resolved itself. You know all too well that both of us are under additional scrutiny regarding our edits on any gun politics article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there is no need for you to be bitter about it, when all I am doing is making the effort to be civil. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your exact words were these:

I request that you self-revert the above difs until the discussion on the Talk has concluded or resolved itself. For the record, I will interpret your inaction or even a tacitly obstinate or coy reply as a refusal which will then result in me bringing the issue to the attention of Admins.

That sounds like a threat to me, even though I had previously asked you - twice - to return the discussion to this page. I will say no further about this unless you make a further issue of it. Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Litigation

There's a lotta news reports about the way the NRA is going after cities in Pennsylvania, dragging them into court over local ordinances. Oughta be covered here. Felsic (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is in the Litigation section of the article. Chicago, San Francisco, and Sunnyvale, CA are mentioned. I think DC is mentioned elsewhere, but that's an easy one to reference. Do you have a source about cities in Pennsylvania? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source. gobonobo 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The NRA is suing to allow gun sales to people "who are found to pose a risk of "imminent harm" to themselves or others," because such ordinances "do not make people safer", using a brand new law they lobbied for. And one of their first targets just happens to be a city whose mayor signed on with MAIG. Felsic (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a simple 3 sentence paragraph. What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Good but incomplete. I added more. Felsic (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of funding

This information has recently been added to the article: "The NRA Freedom Action Foundation is a grantee of the Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund, according to Mother Jones, the progressive news magazine, and Media Matters for America, 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 unreliable source at WP:RSN. 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. Champaign Supernova (talk) 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 Reliable Source Noticeboard, but there's no need to Edit war over this in the mean time.

Thank you for your comment; copy edited and fixed disambig. Hugh (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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 WP:UNDUE. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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. Champaign Supernova (talk) 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. Hugh (talk) 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. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I consider the text in question to be a trivial example of information presently adequately summarized in the finances section. Thewellman (talk) 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. Hugh (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, there is no WP:CONSENSUS 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." Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova:, it was apparently $100,000 in 2011, see here, on the second PDF, page 10. It appears that the NRA-FAF raised $1.9 million according to their 2011 tax return here. But according to this article, 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. Faceless Enemy (talk) 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? Hugh (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 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 . Hugh (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the latest version to get reverted:

The NRA Freedom Action Foundation is a recipient of funds from Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund, according to the progressive news magazine Mother Jones, and the progressive media watchdog Media Matters for America.

1. Kroll, Andy (February 5, 2013). "Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement". Mother Jones. Retrieved February 20, 2015.
2. Angster, Daniel (January 2, 2015). "Koch-Funded News Outlet Defends Dark-Money Organizations". Media Matters for America. Retrieved March 8, 2015.
3. Ball, Whitney L. (2011). "Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax" (PDF). p. 29. Retrieved March 8, 2015.

I'm not sure I see a problem with the addition of this information, though I would probably copyedit it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please take a crack at it, thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is absurdly undue. A hundred thousand dollar contribution in a $40 million foundation that is raising $ millions annually 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? Capitalismojo (talk) 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. Hugh (talk) 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.) Capitalismojo (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, your link is to the NRA Foundation, not the NRA Freedom Action Foundation. 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. Lightbreather (talk) 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are not misconstruing WP:DUE. 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. Hugh (talk) 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? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is not clear from my earlier comments in this thread? Sigh. The funding is notable because of WP:DUE: 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? Hugh (talk) 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. Faceless Enemy (talk) 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. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's trivial. Something like six or seven editors here have disagreed with this inclusion. Perhaps that might indicate something. Capitalismojo (talk) 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 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). Lightbreather (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 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. Hugh (talk) 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). Lightbreather (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Elections subsection or Finances subsection

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:

• Gonyea, Don (May 17, 2010). "NRA Looks To Build On Tea Party Movement". NPR. 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.'
• Norris, Chuck (September 21, 2010). "Trigger The Vote!" (Column). Townhall.com.
• Beckel, Michael (January 11, 2011). "After Arizona Shooting, Gun Control Advocates Push For New Restrictions". Center for Responsive Politics.
• Sands, Geneva (February 15, 2012). "'Full Metal Jacket' actor urges supporters to 'trigger the vote' in NRA campaign". The Hill. 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.
• Stone, Peter H. (April 10, 2012). "NRA, Ralph Reed group plan get-out-the-vote efforts". Center for Public Integrity. '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.
• Hirschkorn, Phil (April 14, 2012). "Gun enthusiasts unite at NRA convention". CBS Interactive.
• Stone, Peter H. (June 1, 2012). "Koch Brothers Plan To Funnel Tens Of Millions To Conservative Allies To Influence 2012 Elections". Huffington Post.
• Stone, Peter (April 2, 2013). "Inside the NRA's Koch-Funded Dark-Money Campaign". Mother Jones.
• Camia, Catalina (July 23, 2014). "NRA kicks off voter registration drive with provocative ad". USA Today. ... 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.
• "National Rifle Association's Freedom Action Foundation Presents Chuck Norris' Top Ten Reasons to Register to Vote". Fairfax, Virginia: National Rifle Association, Political Victory Fund. August 13, 2014. 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.
• Lavender, Paige (August 13, 2014). "Chuck Norris In NRA Ad: Register To Vote 'Because I Said So'". Huffington Post.
• Fessler, Pam (September 18, 2014). "Ads Get Creative, Even Seductive, To Attract Voters". NPR.
• August A. Busch III. "One-on-One with August A. Busch III" (Interview). Interviewed by Chris W. Cox. {{cite interview}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps, as has been suggested, the FAF should be a separate article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't make this personal with "you" statements; keep it on content, not contributor. Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2015 (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. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2015 (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. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• 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? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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. Hugh (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Business Insider source

After reading the Business Insider article here, I'm pretty iffy about using it as a source.

1) The author makes several factual errors:

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". Ruger's donation program ended in 2012, with a total contribution of $1,253,700.

2) The author 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".

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. Faceless Enemy (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 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. Lightbreather (talk) 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. Here's the press release. 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. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of wording of opening paragraph of Finances section

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. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the industry has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."

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.

I have edited it thusly, and I hope that will clear up any objections, otherwise, I propose WP:NPOVN.

Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising. A considerable amount comes from the gun industry itself, which the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."

1. ^ Hickey, Walter (2013-01-16). "How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA". Business Insider. Retrieved 2014-06-05.
2. ^ "Firearms Industry Trade Association: NSSF". nssf.org. National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-02-11. Retrieved 2014-06-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (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. Faceless Enemy (talk) 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? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah...I don't feel it's an edit war either. Faceless Enemy (talk) 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. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2015 (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 WP:SYNTH and hint of POV. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮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. Faceless Enemy (talk) 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." Lightbreather (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Mid-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles