Talk:National Rifle Association

Jim Baker redirect

redirect without actual reference:

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

Issue of largest outside donor

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source cited in the previous sentence, a Washington Post article, does contradict "downplayed gun control issues" at the very least. It discusses times in the 1930s and the 1960s when the NRA opposed gun control laws and regulations. That article does claim that the NRA avoided partisan association before the 1970s (e.g., avoiding direct association with the Republican Party), but that's a different claim than downplaying or avoiding gun control issues. Vadder (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, that citation for the sentence I think should be removed is the same citation as the previous sentence. And this paragraph in the cited article seems to directly contradict the claim made in the sentence.

"Many observers believe the organization was apolitical before the 1970s. But my recently completed dissertation — which analyzes nearly 80 years of the NRA’s widely circulated American Rifleman magazine — shows it was an active, staunch opponent of gun regulations since at least the 1930s, when gun policy first reached the national agenda." Serowman (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source (and see wp:or. We go by what wp:rs say, not what you think. Nor did your source contradict it, as the page was just a notice of new legalizations, not comment on them (and was wp:primary anyway). Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I take your points. Let's completely ignore the American Rifleman issue I linked to and focus on the citation in the sentences just before and after the offending sentence at [45].

The claim that "Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." should be removed because the citation at [45] not only doesn't support that claim, it in fact directly contradicts it.

Here is the paragraph in the citation which contradicts the claim. "Many observers believe the organization was apolitical before the 1970s. But my recently completed dissertation — which analyzes nearly 80 years of the NRA’s widely circulated American Rifleman magazine — shows it was an active, staunch opponent of gun regulations since at least the 1930s, when gun policy first reached the national agenda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/26/how-nra-became-core-member-republican-coalition/ Serowman (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC

And before the 1930's? This is another problem with your edit, even if we accept that from the 1930's onwards it stopped ""Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues.", we do not say that in the 30's it focus was on hunting (etc), nor does the source say it changed its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you argument. Isn't it enough that the offending sentence isn't supported by *any* citation in the article and the proceeding and succeeding citations seem to directly refute it?

You are not a reliable source so unless you can find a source that says that the NRA downplayed gun control issues I don't see why that claim should be in the article. It's just not supported by any citation.

I'm going to start by adding a citation needed tag, but I firmly believe the claim should be removed completely. Serowman (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Even then NRA says that was its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The question of their focus is different than whether or not they downplayed gun control issues.

The paragraph below in the citation you added seems to directly refute the claim made in the sentence. It talks about how the NRA played a direct role in legislation in the 1920s and 1930s. The question of the NRA's focus is different than the claim made in the offending sentence that they downplayed gun control issues. If you want to edit the sentence to reduce the scope of it's claims, and move it out of the section on the 1970s then that might be an acceptable change.

"The NRA played a role in fledgling political efforts to formulate state and national gun policy in the 1920s and 1930s after Prohibition-era liquor trafficking stoked gang warfare. It backed measures like requiring a permit to carry a gun and even a gun purchase waiting period.

And the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934, with two of its leaders testifying before Congress at length regarding this landmark legislation. They supported, if grudgingly, its main provisions, such as restricting gangster weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. But they opposed handgun registration, which was stripped out of the nation’s first significant national gun law." Serowman (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"At first the group was mainly concerned with marksmanship..." "Throughout this period, however, the NRA remained primarily focused on marksmanship, hunting, and other recreational activities, although it did continue to voice opposition to new gun laws, especially to its membership." or what we say, that was its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So the sentence doesn't just say that the NRA focused on those issues. It also says that the NRA downplayed gun control issues which is directly refuted by both of your citations which discuss how active the NRA was in shaping gun control in the 1930s. I have removed the sentence since it is so clearly refuted by the citations. Serowman (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No they do not, and with this it is time for others to step as WE are wp:budgeloning the process. Notre I still oppose your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The latest edit is less incorrect, but it is still misleading. The NRA was constantly strongly opposing various gun control measures that they felt went too far in the 1930s, although the sources you found don’t seem to mention it. In fact they strongly opposed the early versions of the NFA until it was greatly reduced in scope. I will find some secondary sources and update the sentence to be more correct later if you are adamant that it should not be removed.

But the sentence is pretty unnecessary where it is it breaks up the sentences before and after that discuss the NRA’s level of partisanship. I suggest if there is to be a discussion of the NRA’s level of support for gun control in the 1930’s that it should be moved out of the 1970s section and given more nuance. Serowman (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

And supported others, and again we have RS saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what your saying here. But I think the section is correct now, or at least as correct as you will allow it. So I will move on to other things. Serowman (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Move discussion in progress

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

Requested move 22 November 2024

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.
  • Link Count shows 983 indirect links (of which 962 are the "of America" redirect) versus 906 direct links. However, some 556 of the direct links are from articles transcluding the Conservatism US template. 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Young_(police_officer)&diff=next&oldid=1059158586
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia was more US-centric, but Wikipedia is now covers more global subjects and it deserves re-evaluation to ensure we are not embedding systemic bias.

WP:COMMONNAME

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

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

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

• The majority of Authority Control sources use the full “of America” including VIAF; US Library of Congress; Research Organisation Registry; National Library of Australia and IDref.

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

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: National Rifle Association of America
• Brockhaus Enzyklopädie: National Rifle Association of America
• Geonames: National Rifle Association of America

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)