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 04:04, 21 February 2018 editPackMecEng (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,528 edits →Example← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:57, 8 December 2024 edit undoMuboshgu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators376,867 edits →Suggested renaming: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{controversial| }} {{controversial| }}
{{Calm}}
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=gc|style=long}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Firearms|class=B|importance=High {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Firearms|importance=High}}
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = y
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}}
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid}}
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Mid}}
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=High|gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=high}}
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
}} }}
{{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 }}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gc|style=long}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Libertarianism |class=B |importance=Mid}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Social_Movements_and_Social_Media_(Fall_2016) | assignments = ] }}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}}
{{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 34: Line 30:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 3 |counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
Line 40: Line 36:
}} }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-11-17|oldid1=810757472}} {{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)
== Ambrose Burnside a "gunsmith"? ==
----


] → {{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:
Burnside, a West Point graduate, did invent a breech-loading rifle (the Burnside Carbine), and arranged to have that rifle manufactured for sale to the US Army. While Burnside Carbines were manufactured and used by the Army, Burnside himself profited little and was working in an executive position with the Illinois Central Railroad in 1861. While Burnside might be fairly described as an industrial 'gunmaker', the term "gunsmith" suggests a craft that Burnside never practiced.


* Does not conform to ]
== RfC on advocacy for black gun owners ==
* 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.
{{atop|Closing this RFC. There is no consensus to add the subsection suggested by Snooganssnoogans. This does not mean there can be no reference to the topic of advocacy (or lack thereof) for black gun owners within the article. This does not mean none of the content below could be added to the article; there were many suggesting a condensed version may be appropriate, and that is a separate editorial decision. It means there is a consensus not to insert the entire subsection, and that's all it means. Cheers, ]&amp;] 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)}}


'''WP:CRITERIA'''
Should the following text be added to a subsection entitled "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners" in the "Criticism" section:


* '''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.
<blockquote>The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-08/dallas-shootings-underscore-nra-hypocrisy-critics-say|title=Dallas Shootings Underscore NRA Hypocrisy, Critics Say|last=|first=|date=|website=usnews.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite news|url=http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/10/philando-castile-killing-nra-racial-divide|title=Philando Castile's killing puts NRA's gun rights mission at a crossroads|last=Beckett|first=Lois|date=2016-07-10|work=The Guardian|access-date=2017-12-06|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite news|url=http://www.myajc.com/news/why-african-americans-are-gun-shy-about-the-nra/8vkZEnxpS76Ag4TjaobMGP/|title=Why African-Americans are gun-shy about the NRA|work=myajc|access-date=2017-12-06|language=en}}</ref> Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in cases involving gun rights and black gun owners.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/30/politics/nra-philando-castile/index.html|title=Activists accuse NRA of racism for silence over Philando Castile|last=CNN|first=Deena Zaru,|work=CNN|access-date=2017-12-03}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/10/gun-control-racist-present-171006135904199.html|title=Gun control's racist past and present|last=Newton|first=Creede|website=www.aljazeera.com|access-date=2017-12-03}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/nra-philando-castile-response-225310|title=NRA offers tepid comment on police shooting of Minnesota man|work=POLITICO|access-date=2017-12-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article89859017.html|title=For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue|work=mcclatchydc|access-date=2017-12-06|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":7" /><ref>{{Citation|title=After the Castile Verdict, Some Ask: Where is The NRA?|url=http://www.wnyc.org/story/what-castile-verdict-means-african-american-gunholders/|language=en|accessdate=2017-12-06}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-slayton/the-nra-is-racist_b_10927268.html|title=The NRA Is Racist|last=Slayton|first=Robert|date=2016-07-12|website=Huffington Post|language=en-US|access-date=2017-12-05}}</ref> The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias.<ref name=":1" /> Others have argued that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners, such as the case of Philando Castile, is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/07/11/how-the-nras-allegiance-to-cops-undermines-its-credibility-on-gun-rights/|title=Opinion {{!}} How the NRA’s allegiance to cops undermines its credibility on gun rights|last=|first=|date=|website=Washington Post|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2017-12-06}}</ref><ref name=":6" /> </blockquote><blockquote>The NRA came under criticism from some of its own members and other gun rights advocates in June 2017 for its silence on the ] by a police officer at a traffic stop.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/18/some-gun-owners-are-disturbed-by-the-philando-castile-verdict-the-nra-is-silent/|title=Some gun owners are disturbed by the Philando Castile verdict. The NRA is silent.|work=The Washington Post|access-date=2017-06-21}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-nra-washington-gun-lobby-20170619-story.html|title=How the NRA conquered Washington and abandoned gun owners like me|last=Valentine|first=Matt|work=chicagotribune.com|access-date=2017-06-21|language=en-US}}</ref> Castile had a valid firearm permit, informed the police officer about his gun, and was subsequently fatally shot by the police officer when he was allegedly attempting to retrieve his wallet.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/21/what-the-police-officer-who-shot-philando-castile-said-about-the-shooting/|title=What the police officer who shot Philando Castile said about the shooting|last=|first=|date=|work=The Washington Post|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2017-07-31}}</ref> According to ''The Washington Post'', the NRA has typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting.<ref name=":0" /> Some critics attributed the NRA's silence to the fact that Castile was black.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" />&nbsp;On July 9, an NRA spokeswoman commented on the incident, saying it was "a tragedy" that "could have been avoided". Further comments were made by NRA spokeswoman, ], who stated "He was also in possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) and a firearm simultaneously, which is illegal."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://reason.com/blog/2017/07/10/nra-breaks-silence-on-philando-castile-s|title=NRA Breaks Its Silence on Philando Castile Shooting|author=Jacob Sullum|date=July 10, 2017|work=Reason|access-date=July 10, 2017}}</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dana-loesch-explains-why-the-nra-didnt-defend-philando-castile/article/2631154</ref></blockquote><blockquote>], professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, noted that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s and 1930s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by racial minorities.<ref name=":8">{{Cite news|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist|title=Gun Control Is “Racist”?|work=New Republic|access-date=2017-12-06|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/|title=The Secret History of Guns|last=Winkler|first=Adam|work=The Atlantic|access-date=2017-12-06|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/15/the-right-to-bear-arms-has-mostly-been-reserved-for-whites/|title=The right to bear arms has mostly been for white people|last=Winkler|first=Adam|date=2016-07-15|work=Washington Post|access-date=2017-12-06|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Winkler added that it was under this legislation that ] had an application for a concealed carry license turned down in 1956 when he applied for one after his house was firebombed.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":9" /> Winkler also argues that the Gun Control Act of 1968, which the NRA took credit for, was motivated out of a fear of black radicals and race riots.<ref name=":8" /> According to Robert Slayton, Professor of History at Chapman University, there is a precedence to NRA silence on gun-rights cases involving African-Americans.<ref name=":2" /> Slayton mentioned as an example the case of Earl D. Brown, an African-American security guard who carried a licensed weapon and was shot by police after Brown raised his hands and said "I'm security"; the NRA did not comment on the case.<ref name=":2" /> The widow of Brown criticized the NRA for its silence, "Honestly, I hear the N.R.A. talking about the right to bear arms. He had the right to bear his that night; they just never told us he wouldn’t have the right to life. It seems like white men and police officers are the only ones who have the right to bear arms in this country."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/black-gun-owners-police-shootings.html|title=Police Shootings Highlight Unease Among Black Gun Owners|last=Eligon|first=John|date=2016-07-08|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-12-05|last2=Robles|first2=Frances|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Critics of the NRA also noted the organization's lack of a response and failure to offer condolences after ] was killed by police while legally carrying a firearm.<ref name=":1" /></blockquote>
* '''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'''
] (]) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


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:
{{Reflist-talk}}


{{Blockquote
*'''Oppose''' The primary issue is WP:RECENT. This section was born out of a section discussing the criticism of the NRA for not speaking out against the police shooting of Castile. Many claimed this was due to racism though other sources have said its due to the NRA not wanting to antagonize local police departments. As I outlined above, many of the above references don't support the NRA doesn't support black gun owners narrative or in some cases they support it poorly by citing examples of the NRA not speaking out for a black gun owner but failing to show that the NRA does speak out when a white or other ethnicity owner is shot by police. The final paragraph is largely referencing two anti-gun, anti-NRA writers and shouldn't be considered a broader view on the subject. The laws in question are older and it isn't clear to what extent the NRA is responsible for the actual legislation in question. Furthermore I don't believe that we should use 1920s era legislation as evidence of a current controversy or problem with the organization. Many things have changed in nearly 100 years. ] (]) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)+
|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.”

:: I am not understanding what you are saying? First you say its a recent issue and should not be included. Then you go on to say we should ignore the history as things have changed yet the current events are to recent? You seem to be dancing between the 2 things that when combined are the guidelines for inclusion in that there is a history of this and it still happens today. And the references seem to support that as well. You say oppose but your reasoning as a whole seems to support adding it per wikipedias rules for inclusion. ] (]) 12:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:::There are two issues being conflated here. The first is if the NRA is supporting racist laws. That is a historical question and would generally focus on laws pasted in the 1980s and earlier. The second is if the NRA is racist in its support for individuals who's rights have been violated by the state. These sources have focused on Castile and a few other cases but as the WP already pointed out, that isn't an issue of race, but an issue of the NRA being torn between supporting local law enforcement and gun owners. The accusations of recent racism really don't hold water when one looks at the evidence presented. The articles that claim the NRA is racist due to not speaking out about the Castile shooting ignore that the NRA didn't speak out about several similar shootings where the victim wasn't black. It seems that the public was demanding a statement specifically because of the current political climate around BLM type issues. This section is trying to fit the "racism" label on events/issues as a way to tar the NRA vs because the label really fits the facts. ] (]) 15:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

* '''Support''' The many references show this has been an issue for a long time. The references also make point that it is not a singular event or only a recent observation, but one that has been around and brought up many times. This wholly meets inclusion guidelines and the many independent and reliable references also support it. ] (]) 12:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

* '''Support'''. The content is reliably sourced and the text adheres to the sources. There are 16 reliable sources (the Chicago Tribune op-ed is incorrectly used, and I can't vouch for Reason and the Washington Examiner which were added by other editors originally) that substantiate the text. Statements of opinion and criticism are attributed to critics and/or specific individuals. Statements made by scholars are attributed to them. There is no problem of ] given both the abundant sourcing (which demonstrates that the text is notable and of lasting importance) and the fact that criticism of the NRA's lack of advocacy for racial minorities can be traced to events in the 1920s/1930s and 1960s. ] (]) 12:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
::As I've said, most of the sources don't support the thrust of this section. As they are assembled this could be viewed as WP:SYN. ] (]) 15:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
::: That is completely and utterly false. Every single sentence adheres exactly to the sources (with the exception of the three sources I mentioned above). ] (]) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:::: No, much of the material doesn't support the conclusion. The thrust of the section is the NRA has acted based on racism. Some of the sources support that but many don't. An article that states the NRA was slow to or didn't talk about Castile isn't supporting the long term racism narrative. Perhaps the best way to do this is lay out which articles you believe support the overall thesis of the section. Then we can decide if those are reliable or not. I've already stated why I don't believe many of the sources support the thesis of the section. We need to do more than just a he said, she said. ] (]) 15:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
::::: (1) There is no narrative that is being advanced or argument that has to be supported. The text reports what RS report. It's ] for Misplaced Pages editors to build a case for or against something. Whether you find the arguments advanced by critics of the NRA credible or not is irrelevant. (2) This is the article that you're talking about. I encourage everyone to read it, because ''this'' is what Springee considers to be a source that has nothing to do with the NRA and gun rights for black gun owners: ''This''. ] (]) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::*There's a narrative being advanced, but it's by some of the sources, then passed along here. You keep confusing the issue. Nobody is disputing that a RS said it. The dispute is that it doesn't belong here. Merely being newsworthy doesn't make something notable for inclusion. ] (]) 16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::Misrepresenting what I have said is not an argument. What you have there is an article talking about a single event (WP:Recent applies). Some of the people interviewed claim the NRA is silent due to racism. That isn't an article on which to anchor a three paragraph section, especially since we have other sources stating its not race but fear of alienating PD's that's at play here. Remember that your article is a RS with respect to the facts that it conveys but opinion with respect to interpreting those facts. I've already said I'm not against including some of the content but not in the way joy are trying to include it. ] (]) 16:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
* '''Oppose in current from'''. Cut it down to one-two sentences or a short paragraph. This is a very recent attack line against the NRA, and giving it so much ] space would drown out the more substantial criticism this organization has faced throughout the years.] (]) 13:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' there's RECENT, UNDUE and NPOV. The entire last paragraph is from an opinion blog, not a RS. There is no opposing viewpoint, especially from Colin Noir or other NRA people. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:: In the last paragraph, there are six sources (not one "opinion blog"): (1) US News & World Report, (2) NY Times, (3-5) Op-eds in the Atlantic, Wash Post and the New Republic (text is attributed to the author), (6) Op-ed in HuffPo (text is attributed to the author). ] (]) 14:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:::If we are going to use opinions attributed to the authors, are those opinions from "experts"? If not they are basically the same as editorial opinions. ] (]) 15:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This started as a way to try to shoehorn in some allegations made by mostly left-leaning sources to create a division among gun owners. For the most part, it centers around the reactions to one event. Then, when that was opposed, the OP tried adding in the opinions of a law professor and tried making the op-ed piece from a small college history teacher sound like academic study. In the overall history of the org, this is a short-lived discussion. Simply stacking a lot of sources doesn't make it more notable. 500 sources talked about Megan Markle's nose this week, we're not putting that in her bio. ] (]) 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
::I generally agree. I think there is something here but it's really around the NRA supporting law enforcement vs individual gun owners when the two are conflicting. ] (]) 15:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:: Could you clarify which of the 16 sources are "''left-leaning sources to create a division among gun owners''"?
*'''Oppose''' The NRA is Pro Gun Rights and Pro Law Enforcement organization. Every single police officer in the USA is trained to shoot by an NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor. The fact that they give the police the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are in does not make the NRA racist. It makes the NRA cautious. Unlike most of the so called news organizations that automatically attack white police officers for shooting black suspects. --] (]) 17:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:: So, you don't have any policy-based reason for excluding this content? ''You just personally disagree with the criticism''? ] (]) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Mixed''' There's clearly justification for including some of these criticisms in the article. I sympathize with other editors who think the length and tone are ]. It should be clarified that the question is not "is the NRA, in fact, a racist organization?", the question is "should we report the fact that the NRA has been accused of racial bias in the Castile case?" I can't see much reason why it wouldn't be mentioned. Additional comments on wording below. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
#CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> ]</sup> 03:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose.''' I oppose solely because it is '''way too long'''. Reduce the size considerably, and I'd probably be in favor.'''&thinsp;&mdash;'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;(])&nbsp;(])&thinsp; 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' in a condensed form, such as presented below, in the "Comments" sub-section. Alternatively, reduce quotes in the version as offered in this RfC. For example, this material could go: "The widow of Brown criticized the NRA for its silence...." and her quote. Same applies to the quote by NRA here: "On July 9, an NRA spokeswoman commented..." and the rest of the para. Loesch is not a legal expert (AFAIK) and should not be quoted for legal opinions. But the gist of the material definitely belongs. ] (]) 05:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:: I agree that we ought to remove the Loesch quotes. ] (]) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It is too long, & it's taking a POV that silence equals racism, which isn't justified. The evidence for NRA being ''responsible'' for the passage of gun control laws (not just supporting them, & that in itself would be a strange reversal), & ''actively intending'' they restrict ownership by racial minorities, needs to be stronger, too, IMO.  ] ] 05:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:: Could you clarify how the text takes "a POV that silence equals racism"? Do you disagree that it's sufficient to attribute the latter claims to the UCLA professor? If you read the sources, you can see that he notes that ''it was the NRA who took credit for passing those bills'' (it's not his inference but the NRA's). ] (]) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:::"quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in cases involving gun rights and black gun owners" Implicit in this is, NRA believes black rights (or black gun owners) aren't worth defending, which is what the statement is trying to make me believe, without actually ''saying'' so. Silence on an issue, any issue, does not equate to support: if I say nothing about the killing of Castile, does that mean I believe he deserved it? That is an indefensible conclusion to reach, yet that's exactly the conclusion being offered. As for the NRA being responsible for passage of laws, if all you've got is a single UCLA professor saying it, that's ''far'' from sufficient to support the truth of the claim; even if NRA is claiming credit (& you've got a cite saying so), you're miles from proving the intent of the law was racist, let alone ''NRA intended it to be''. (That the ''result'' is racially biased is an entirely different issue: a lot of laws, not least the Drug War, have outcomes like that, without the ''aim'' being racist.) ] ] 08:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''HARD OPPOSE''' Calling the NRA a racist organization because they didn't immediately condemn a police shooting to satisfaction of anti-police, anti-gun, anti-NRA writers is pure unadulterated bias.--] (]) 05:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:: None of the text states in Wiki-voice that the NRA is a racist organization. The text doesn't even try to attribute accusations of racism (even though people do accuse the NRA of racism). Could you elaborate on which of the 16 sources are "anti-police, anti-gun, anti-NRA writers"? ] (]) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - MANY well sourced and cited articles, not to mention suitable for the CRITICISM SECTION. The alleged issue of recentism is unfounded, as per above... ''"There is no problem of WP:RECENTISM given both the abundant sourcing (which demonstrates that the text is notable and of lasting importance) and the fact that criticism of the NRA's lack of advocacy for racial minorities can be traced to events in the 1920s/1930s and 1960s."'' - ] (]) 07:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Leaf-leaning sources alleging racism does not belong in Wikipeida. Undue and NPOV. Trying to claim the NRA is racist is just wrong. ] (]) 21:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:: Could you clarify which of the 16 reliable sources you consider to be "left-leaning"? When you say that they are left-leaning, are you suggesting that they are not ]? ] (]) 01:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
::*That question has been essentially answered, but then you respond by implying that calling a source left-leaning is claiming that they're not quality or a RS. A reliable source can easily have a "lean". Many people would call Fox News or the WSJ "right leaning". I would tend to agree. Similarly, Salon or Mother Jones are left-leaning. You keep trying to deflect from the larger issue with this question. ] (]) 19:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:::* (1) The sources are not left-leaning. (2) What is the relevance of the sources being left-leaning if you're not questioning whether they are ]? What exactly is your policy-based reason for opposing this content? ] (]) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::*If you say "no they aren't" a few more times, maybe I'll magically believe that. You have a tendency to listen for only the answer you want to hear. Trying to explain it to you is pointless. ] (]) 15:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Lot's of passages that could be marked with {{by whom}} or which configure ] in some other way, as well as ] to try to "make a point". ] (]) 00:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:: What a bizarre rationale. Do you want us to list every single person and group that has criticized the NRA? If we do that, will that meet your concerns? ] (]) 01:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
::: Is there any relevant one? If so, attribute to them, forget the irrelevant ones. ] (]) 12:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:::: Ok, so this is apparently the next step: (1) I attribute the criticism (that has been covered by 16 reliable sources) to specific persons and groups, and (2) you'll next claim that persons and groups (even though covered by 16 RS) are not relevant? Always a pleasure interacting with such a principled editor such as yourself, Saturnalia0. ] (]) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::*You keep chanting "16 reliable sources", failing to acknowledge that we've seen duplication among them and hoping that the number 16 will impress people. If there are 10,000 reliable sources reporting on a story, that's impressive. If 16 of 10,000 do, it's not. Once again, if 500 sources report that some random celebrity accidentally flashed her privates getting out of a car, that doesn't mean it goes in the bio. ] (]) 15:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' seems undue weight and soap boxing. ] (]) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:: Can you elaborate? ] (]) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Per ], and also excessively citing news sources to try and push a point using borderline ] words. I support cutting out the unnecessary references, making a fine line in the text between the 1920s and 1930s NRA and the 2010s NRA. Also a good 2/3 of the sentences in the last paragraph is "According to...", " added...", etc. <sub style="border:2px solid #FF0000;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 10:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
:: (1) Please identify the weasel words. (2) You state that there are too many reliable sources, yet also complain about ]. (3) How would you attribute statements other than through "According to...", " added...", etc.? ] (]) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' None of the opposals so far convince on why it should be removed altogether. Some simply state that NRA is not racist and therefore this shouldn't be added. That's ]. Political slurs also really don't help during a discussion. As Snoogans says, the material is sufficiently supported. If there are specific objections, these can be addressed instead. Material will never be 100% perfect before being included, so help in making it better. With an article containing 132,928 bytes of content I don't see how three paragraphs on a controversial issue supported by plenty of sources is undue. ] (]) 18:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support''', possibly in abbreviated form: the topic of the NRA and race relations is clearly notable, and has been the subject of a lot of discussion in the news media and elsewhere. Three decent-sized paragraphs might be too much weight. The oppose votes contain no good arguments. --] (]) 23:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' {{sbb}}. The proposed text is rather too long, but the support for the phenomenon in question among reliable sources is quite clear, and they are numerous enough that failing to mention this notion would be an NPOV violation. The fact that allegations of racism have received coverage in multiple reputable international papers is indicative of its significance. ] (]) 13:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Qualified support.''' Per summary by Nblund, Vanamonde and others, the content is overlong, some parts (like ML King's licence refusal) are a bit tendentious, but the topic is legitimate and sourced. ] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' in abbreviated form. The topic of the organization and race relations is certainly ], having received sustained and meaningful attention from a variety of scholars, news organizations, etc., over a series of decades. I agree with Pincrete, Nblund, Vanamonde, etc. that the content could be shrunk. I find the "oppose" comments utterly unpersuasive. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' To long and overall undue. Given the history and coverage the NRA receives, that much weight to something barely covered is undue. Especially since the sources as a whole are not that great for such statements. ] (]) 19:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

===Comments===
The criticisms of the NRA's response to the Castile shooting alone are significant enough to warrant some mention. The notion that the NRA has a mixed record on race relations is hardly new, but it certainly got a lot more coverage after the Castile shooting. I think the paragraph on Castile could be shorter and a bit more neutrally worded - someone might reasonably dispute the claim that the NRA was "silent" on the Castile shooting, for instance. I think something along these lines might be a starting point?

{{Quote box
|quote=
In 2016, the NRA was criticized for its response to the death of Philando Castile, a black man who was shot by a police officer after Castile informed him that he was legally carrying a firearm. The NRA issued a brief statement shortly after the shooting that called the incident "troubling" and did not mention Castile by name. Critics said , defenders argued . }}

A second paragraph might discuss some of the broader criticisms of the NRAs record on issues of racial equality:

{{Quote box
|quote= The NRA has been scrutinized for what critics argue is a lack of concern for black gun owners. Historian Adam Winkler criticized the NRA's past support for gun restrictions in the '60s and '70s that he argues were motivated by fears of racial unrest. (]). The sociologist Scott Melzer suggests that the NRA's use of racially charged appeals, such as its occasionally running ads for products bearing the confederate flag, casts the defense of gun rights as "primarily a (conservative) white men's cause". .}}

I'm open to suggestions of course, but the criticism surrounding Castile in particular was pretty significant, and it some of it came from groups that are generally supportive of gun rights ()[[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
#CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> ]</sup> 03:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
: I fully favor your suggested language and length for the former of the two paragraphs. I fully favor adding language on racially charged rhetoric by the NRA (additional examples include having Ted Nugent on their board of directors), but I intentionally left that out in an attempt to compromise with editors who were extremely hostile to adding any race-related criticism of the NRA to the article. I do not favor trimming the three sentences attributed by Winkler though (if you're suggesting a trim for that paragraph - it's unclear). ] (]) 03:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
::Even allowing the thrust of the proposal is justified, & IMO it really isn't, the statement "Castile was allegedly reaching for his wallet" is troubling. It suggests the writer either believes Castile, as a gun owner, was going for his weapon & not his wallet, or believes he was, because he was black. That, I suspect, was not the intended impression. ] ] 05:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather than making the section about not siding with minority gun owners I think it would make more sense to make the general criticism siding with local law enforcement rather than individual gun owners. There are actually a number of examples of this (Reason and the WP article I added to the pre-RFC discussion support this view and support it with a number of examples). Inside of that discussion I think we should mention Castile and the other recent examples and note that critics have claimed this is due to racism. The problem I see is that many sources like to cry racism because it's politically expedient. However, when we look at the evidence, ie articles that take a broader view and show that the NRA is also quiet when it's a non-miniority gun owner who suffers, it's clear this is a larger issue. I think a separate section on miniority outreach (and lack there of) would also be a good section. In that section we can discuss how many laws the NRA supported in the past were seen as targeting minorities. We can also talk about recent adds/messages that might turn off minorities. This would also be a good section to talk about actions the NRA is taking to try to break the old white man's club image. Discussing these topics as anti-black is too narrow even if we include answer's to the critic's claims. It both misses the forest for the trees and presents a very non-nuanced telling of the events. ] (]) 14:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:That seems like a different criticism from the one being offered in most of the editorials on Philando Castile - it might also be worth mentioning, but the accusation of racial bias appears to have been the more prominent interpretation.
:Like I said: it really doesn't matter whether or not we think the accusations of racial bias are incorrect or unfair to the NRA, it is a significant viewpoint and so it should be mentioned as an opinion that is held by some critics of the NRA.

:], yes, I'm suggesting that the first and second paragraphs could be merged (they are somewhat redundant), and that the third paragraph could be replaced with the one I suggested on more general criticisms of the NRA's record on racial issues. Three full sentences from Adam Winkler probably aren't justifiable. You can make a case for getting the general thrust of his criticisms, but recounting multiple supporting anecdotes seems like the deck is being stacked in his favor. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
#CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> ]</sup> 16:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

COMMENT...If an organization supports gun control it is a racist organization. The NRA supported gun control in the 1920s and 30s. Therefore it is a racist organization. If this is true then the Democrat Party and the NAACP must be the most racist organizations in the history of the USA, because they support every gun control law ever proposed. This is a stupid flawed illogical argument, it doesn't matter how many ANTI-NRA news papers report it. If it passes here, then the same (they are racist) text can be added to every so called civil rights and news organization on WIKI because they all support gun control.--] (]) 17:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:: I would relocate this to a more appropriate section, but there is no sub-header for "incoherent rambling." --] (]) 15:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
:::*Which oncoherent rambling would that be? ] (]) 20:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Niteshift36}} the one that was inexplicably moved by its original poster without explanation despite having been responded to. (But you could have figured that out yourself with 30 seconds of looking at the history for the page.) I have now reassembled the chain in a sensible location. --] (]) 16:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::*I believe that asking a clarifying question is better than guessing. So I asked. ] (]) 20:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::"critics have claimed this is due to racism" I have a concern that, simply by repeating the allegation, we give it weight it doesn't deserve. What I've seen so far is an attack on the NRA couched in racial/racist terms, because that makes the NRA the bad guy, when NRA's ''actual behavior'' isn't clearly racist (&, indeed, may not be racist in any fashion, except, perhaps, by accident). I daresay most of the sources accusing NRA of racisim have no interest in being genuinely even-handed, either to gain points with racial minorities or with anti-gun lobbiests. That being true (& it may well not be), WP should not be giving them a platform, nor an implicit endorsement. ] ] 11:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

===Canvassing===
Is this ]? Seems inappropriate. ] (]) 03:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
: Do you even bother to read what you post? ] clearly states that it is appropriate.
{{Quote
|text="Appropriate notification
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Misplaced Pages collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion."

Now I didn't come from any talk page rather from you reverting my edits. But the way you responded to everyone who opposed and how you're treating this defeat is really inappropriate. ] (]) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
}} }}
::], I can't speak for ] here, but: although the original notice was appropriate, the response from ] may have been inappropriate because it was ]. I don't think its likely to sway the outcome here and I doubt the user intended to skirt the rules, but notices shouldn't read like someone trying to round up a posse. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
#CC79A7; color:white;">'''Nblund'''</span>]]<sup> ]</sup> 20:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:: The user Limspcash not only misrepresents the RfC but is blatantly asking users to come here and vote in a certain way. That's canvassing. ] (]) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
*Notifying the project most directly involved in this topic is completely appropriate. His summary aside, the actual request was to "comment" on the talk page, not to support anything. Quit grasping at straws. ] (]) 15:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

*:''"His summary aside"''? Are we supposed to just ignore what the editor wrote? (SEE ). '''"There seem to be a move to call the NRA a racist organization because they didn't immediately condemn a police shooting to satisfaction of anti-police, anti-gun, anti-NRA writers."''' This is typically referred to as ]. ] (]) 00:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
::*I don't dispute that he should have been a bit more neutral, but let's be honest...it was at the Firearms project. Do you honeslty think it "poisioned" that many opinions there? Had he said the same thing at the Film project talk page since this article mentions movies, I may be a bit more concerned. As it stands, he was essentially preaching to the choir. In addition, your "problem" essentially implies that editors at the firearms project wouldn't be capable of coming here and reading on their own that "There seem to be a move to call the NRA a racist organization because they didn't immediately condemn a police shooting to satisfaction of anti-police, anti-gun, anti-NRA writers.". ] (]) 15:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
::*Separately, it's not clear whether "anti-police, anti-gun, anti-NRA ''writers''" (emphasis mine) are sources being used or Misplaced Pages editors participating in this discussion. ] (]) 01:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

*'''Not Canvassing''' The RFC has been rejected. Like Niteshift said "Quit grasping at straws"--] (]) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The proposed add seems to me to fit ]'s description pretty well. Should the notice have been worded more neutrally? Yes. Should the proposal fail anyhow? Yes. ] ] 08:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:], I don't agree that the firearms project is most directly related to this. What about ]? Frankly the hostility of both the summary and some of the responses here don't reassure that this wasn't canvassing. ] (]) 18:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
::*You may not agree, but do you see anything on this page about the article being part of the firearms project? Yes, yes you do. Do you see anything about the discrimination project? No. You are focused on a single (inflated) issue, rather than the larger article. The article about the National RIFLE Association is most certainly most directly related to the Firearms project. And again....how "poisoned" is the well at that point? ] (]) 19:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Comparison to NAD & NAACP ==

I removed this statement from the article:
*The ], founded in 1880, and the ], founded in 1909, have made similar claims.<ref name=NAD2014>{{cite web |url=http://nad.org/blogs/01/30/2014/nad-oldest-civil-rights-organization-usa |title=NAD is the Oldest Civil Rights Organization in the USA! |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=2014-01-30|publisher=National Association of the Deaf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140210053416/http://www.nad.org/blogs/01/30/2014/nad-oldest-civil-rights-organization-usa |archivedate=2014-02-10 |deadurl=no |accessdate=2014-05-30 }}</ref><ref name=NAACP2009>{{cite web |url=http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history |title=NAACP: 100 Years of History |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2009|publisher=National Association for the Advancement of Colored People |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100812021721/http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history |archivedate=2010-08-12 |deadurl=no |accessdate=2014-05-30 }}</ref>
{{reflist-talk}}
This looks like OR / SYNTH based on primary sources. I don't believe it's suitable for inclusion. If a secondary source made this comparison, then maybe, but not in the current form. Please let me know if there are any concerns. ] (]) 01:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
: There are quite a few stores comparing them ever since the NRA made that claim. Even the NAD had to write up a retort to the NRA here http://nad.s1001.sureserver.com/blogs/01/30/2014/nad-oldest-civil-rights-organization-usa Plus other stories like http://deafnetwork.com/wordpress/blog/2014/02/21/nad-is-the-oldest-civil-rights-organization-in-the-usa/ and https://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/no-the-nra-is-not-actually-the-united-states-oldest-civil-rights-organization/ That was just searching for links to the NRA and NAD. Probably more when you include the NAACP. ] (]) 03:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
::*The NAD is probably not the best people to cite here, especially a blog post by "admin". ] (]) 17:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified (February 2018) ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,


(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.
I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602041042/http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=103 to http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=103
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109120402/http://meetthenra.org/board-list to http://meetthenra.org/board-list
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210160640/http://thegunzone.com/shot/bimbos.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/shot/bimbos.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325125903/http://nrablog.com/post/2012/12/12/Missouri-hosts-last-Friends-of-NRA-event-of-2012-this-Friday.aspx to http://www.nrablog.com/post/2012/12/12/Missouri-hosts-last-Friends-of-NRA-event-of-2012-this-Friday.aspx


* The majority of Authority Control sources use the full “of America” including ; ; ; and .
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


COMMONNAME also suggests looking at other encyclopaedic sources to determine what titles are in an encyclopaedic ].
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}


* Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
* Brockhaus Enzyklopädie:
* Geonames:


Most non-English Wikipedias also use “of America” , , . ] (]) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018 ==


:What has changed since your last move request 2 years ago? ] (]) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Dear Misplaced Pages i believe your information is false and inaccurate Sincerely Hector #freescubasteve <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::* 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.
{{notdone}} it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ] (]) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::* 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.
::* 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.
::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.
::] (]) 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{{ping|Chaheel_Riens|HiLo48|Bobsd|Muboshgu}}. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::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)
:::'''AGREE''' with changing to '''National Rifle Association of America'''
:::My opinion has not changed since two years ago:
:::] 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 ], 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" <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?
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018 ==
: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 @] has made seems to be met with a '''''yes, but''''' ] and ] without addressing why they should have priority over ] and ].
: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)
{{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)
* '''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)
*:Thankyou for your comment on ] - 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 ]. 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?
*: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)
{{edit semi-protected|National Rifle Association|answered=yes}}
* '''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)
Change This:
** 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)
Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington DC. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.
*:'''"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 ] -->
To:
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>
Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington DC. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates. The NRA has used its financial might to invest in scholarship and research to reframe the intent of the 2nd Amendment from protecting the rights of states to protecting the rights of individuals, despite the clear intent of the Constitution's authors. This reinterpretation, which the American people have fallen for, is now commonly accepted and is the greatest barrier to reasonable gun control legislation. The NRA has convinced Americans that the constitution protects their right to not just own an assault weapon, but to own multiple assault weapons and sufficient ammunition to enable the slaughter of their fellow Americans. When the second amendment was written, an 'arm' was a musket. Not an AR-15.


== "]" listed at ] ==
″The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.″ – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice ] (]) 02:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
]
:Please read ]. ] (]) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
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 ==
== This article looks highly biased in favor of NRA ==


The NRA has been absolutely silent about the unconstitutional. 18. 922 g1 ] (]) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Its officers. It's safety program. It's legislative efforts. Etc. Etc. A person reading this who has not been following the news recently might think all is well and rosy with the good 'ole NRA when the truth is that there is terrific anger following these mass shootings, like maybe more than half of the US population. That is, anger among the people still living who haven't yet been shot. Maybe a POV tag is needed at the top.--] (]) 02:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:There is a Criticism section. Things can always be improved, but this can't be turned into a hit piece against the NRA either. ] (]) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) :What do RS say? ] (]) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, the criticism section is safely buried deep in the article text. Of course we need to be fair, but the way this article reads right now is like a pink party dress covering up Charles Manson.--] (]) 02:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
:::So if the page doesn't say the NRA is a tool of Satan, if not, indeed, Satan, you won't be satisfied? ] ] 02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::I don't think any of these exaggerations are going to help. ] (]) 10:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' -- I share the concerns expressed by the OP. Let's work on making the article more neutral. ] (]) 03:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
*I think "more neutral" is something that will require more detail. While there are a lot of accusations leveled against the organization it's not clear how many of those are based on sound reasoning vs emotion. This is a politically charged topic. It's possible we will have people who agree the article is biased but in opposite directions! Anyway, it may be true but specifics are needed here. ] (]) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
**A couple of issues that should probably be addressed with greater thoroughness: (1) NRA $$$ going to candidates and politicians -- will these donations have a negative effect on their reelection prospects? (2) will NRA positions change because of these shootings? (3) money flows coming ''into'' the NRA -- from where, from who (gun manufacturers? hunters? etc), how much? how will these change after these shootings? (4) how will the NRA react to increased public anger following the mass shootings? These are a few issues; there are many more; right now, the article looks like it was written by NRA public relations people.--] (]) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::*All of those questions require predictions and, I'm not certain they're even appropriate for the NRA article. ] (]) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::Then same issues, but use past tense.--] (]) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (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)
===Example===
I’ve been asked to be more specific above. This could be such an example; please see this diff which removed a sentence from the lead, with the edit summary: “…This is a short-term ‘issue’ over the course of the history of the org”. The sentence removed was:


== Suggested renaming ==
*The organization has become the focus of intense criticism in the wake of repeated ].<ref name="twsUSAToday11"/><ref name="twsAJC11"/><ref name=Hickey130116/>
{{reflist-talk}}


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 don’t see its inclusion being ]; it’s not a passing topic and seems highly relevant. See for example: , ''Politico'':
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)
* House and Senate Democrats have renewed efforts to put legislation expanding background checks, among other things, to a vote in Congress in response to the Nevada shooting that left at least 59 dead and more than 500 injured — the deadliest of its kind in modern U.S. history. LaPierre said '''the backlash compelled''' his organization to make the announcement on Thursday. “The other side has been so outright trying to politicize this tragedy that we did feel the need to speak out today on this whole bump stock issue,” he said.


:Do you see ]? That discussion closed nine days ago. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
So even the NRA is acknowledging the backlash. This content is pertinent in the lead and summarises the body of the article, which includes a discussion of this topic. I plan to restore the edit; please let me know if there are any concerns. ] (]) 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
::Agreed. One well-referenced sentence in a lede section packed with pro-NRA stuff is only a first step in trying to remove the POV in this article.--] (]) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The sources listed above are:
:1 -
:2 -
:3 -
ref names with no links were a bit confusing. But all those sources are specifically Emma Gonzalez not the sources themselves. They all also just focus on this shooting, no mention of repeated mass shootings. I would probably dump the Hindustan Times as not a very strong source. ] (]) 04:04, 21 February 2018 (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 Association → National Rifle Association of America –
What's in a name?
National Rifle Association is unique amongst articles relating to National Rifle Associations in the title being arbitrarily abbreviated. The organisation is called the “National Rifle Association of America”, but the en.WP article title omits “of America”. In 2024, this:
  • Does not conform to WP:Criteria
  • Does not reflect the most common usage within WP
  • Deserves re-assessment and scrutiny per WP:GLOBALISE to ensure it is not embedding systemic bias.

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

WP:CRITERIA

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