Talk:National Rifle Association

Jim Baker redirect
redirect without actual reference: "National Rifle Association (redirect from Jim Baker (lobbyist))"

Moving article to "National Rifle Association of America"
Apologies if this has been discussed before. I did check Talk Archives 1-7 and (perhaps surprisingly) did not spot previous discussion - it mostly seemed to be Content talk. There was a lot of it though!

I believe there is a case for moving this article from "National Rifle Association" to "National Rifle Association of America". "National Rifle Association" should then redirect to the disambiguation page.

My reasons are:

Correctness & WP:CRITERIA


 * The organisation discussed in this article is legally incorporated as "NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA"


 * The organisation's crest names it as "National Rifle Association of America"


 * The article lead opens with "The National Rifle Association of America..."


 * (Added 12 May 2022) WP:CRITERIA states that Precision and Consistency should be considered alongside Recognizability/Naturalness/Concision. Given that other articles use the full and correct name (e.g. National Rifle Association of Australia, of India), it is clearly inconsistent (and inherently imprecise) to arbitrarily drop the "of America".

Undue Weight/Systemic Bias


 * Allowing the NRA of America to occupy the generic "National Rifle Association" namespace is US-centric and is incompatible with WP:GLOBAL. "The" NRA is really an NRA. Yes it is very large and domestically significant within the USA. But the NRA of America is not "the" NRA for most users (Brits, South Africans, Jamaicans, etc). President does not contain the article for President of the United States - that would be ridiculous.

Downstream users


 * Whilst wikipedia/wikidata are not directly responsible for the usage of data by downstream users, there is evidence that the undue weight afforded by the generic namespace causes issues globally. For instance in searching "National Rifle Association" in google.co.uk or bing.co.uk, the top search result is (correctly) returned as nra.org.uk. However, the knowledge panel/info box to the right is populated with information about the NRA of America, drawn from wikipedia (screenshot). Whilst it is the job of google and bing to (for instance) avail themselves of platforms like wikidata (which would connect  with the correct entity and appropriate WP article), it is also incumbent on us as contributors and editors to be mindful of allowing domestic or locally-significant organisations to occupy a generic namespace, and the confusion or misdirection which may occur for users outside that territory.

I acknowledge this is a significant proposal, undoubtedly controversial in some quarters (and completely obvious in others!). But whilst this is a large and significant article, being "first" or prominent in the media is not a good enough reason in itself to occupy the generic namespace. I look forward to comments. Best wishes and good shooting.

Hemmers (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Mild Oppose - Good arguments, but I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Even here in the backwaters of the UK, if anybody says either "NRA" or "National Rifle Association" it's known that it refers to the good ol' boys in America, and nobody ever says "Do you mean the American organisation, or the Norwegian one?"  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that perspective. I would gently note that in my back water of the UK, the opposite is true - talk of the NRA invokes images of Bisley, not Wayne LaPierre. You're quite right that nobody asks "Do you mean the Americans or Bisley?" We always mean the British entity when we refer to "the NRA". I find a nuisance that I get the wrong result in searches. Which shows the value of requests for comment!
 * It does raise an interesting related point (which I had not closely considered when originally writing this) as to whether policies like WP:COMMONNAME are at risk of being contributing factors to broader societal systemic bias. Whilst Google showing the wrong organisation in a knowledge panel is far less significant than (say) the strong UK mainstream media bias towards US/anglophone news (compared with say, European or African news). The fact that such things happen could have a reinforcing, subconscious impact on the profile of US-based organisations, giving them undue weight in global culture and world news. I wonder with time whether WP:COMMONNAME may be increasingly overruled by a stricter application of WP:GLOBAL if it is found that it creates/perpetuates a bias towards North American/Anglophone organisations and culture, Hemmers (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I would disagree that WP:COMMONNAME applies here. WP:CRITERIA clearly states that article titles should consider Precision and Consistency alongside Recognizability/Naturalness/Concision. Given that other articles use the full and correct name (e.g. National Rifle Association of Australia, of India), it is clearly inconsistent (and inherently imprecise) to arbitrarily shorten the NRA of America. It has also demonstrably caused confusion. For instance, at one point this article was pointing at the bare "NRA" article until it was corrected to "of the United Kingdom".
 * I believe WP:COMMONNAME would be a valid consideration when deciding whether the current title should redirect to the properly titled ('of America') article or to (say) the disambiguation page. I do not believe it outweighs the need for the article to be correctly titled in the first instance.Hemmers (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per common name. I understand some of this concern but in terms of notoriety, the NRA is far more notable vs other examples.  How many other "NRA"s are there (that are English named).  Are other articles likely to be confused with the US NRA?  What is the common name of those organizations?  I think Disambiguation also is in favor of the US NRA as the primary topic.  Springee (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How many other "NRA"s are there (that are English named). - At least 9 other orgs contain the string "National Rifle Association" in their name.
 * Are other articles likely to be confused with the US NRA? - Yes. There is at least one case I have found of articles about Brits being erroneously linked to the NRA of America for a period. See: WP:CRITERIA Precision
 *  What is the common name of those organizations? - In particular, the common and legal name of the British NRA is simply "National Rifle Association". It was founded by Royal Charter as such in 1859. "of the United Kingdom" is used exclusively to disambiguate it online from the American entity. However, domestically no Australian is going to say "I need to renew my NRA membership - NRA of Australia you understand, not the NRA in the US. What sort of drongo would mix those two up?". "National Rifle Association" is the common name for all those organisations in their countries.
 * I would generally disagree that WP:COMMONNAME applies directly. WP:CRITERIA clearly states that article titles should consider Precision and Consistency alongside Recognizability/Naturalness/Concision. Given that other articles use the full and correct name (e.g. National Rifle Association of Australia, of India) or even have to extend their name ('of the United Kingdom') to avoid conflict/confusion with the US entity, it is clearly both inconsistent and imprecise to arbitrarily shorten the NRA of America. It's incompatible with both WP:CRITERIA and WP:GLOBAL.
 * I believe WP:COMMONNAME would be a valid consideration when deciding whether the current title should redirect to the properly titled ('of America') article or to somewhere else (e.g. the disambiguation page). I do not believe it outweighs the need for the article to be correctly titled in the first instance.Hemmers (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Hemmers (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and if anything, that policy tells me the article should be retitled NRA. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  if anything, that policy tells me the article should be retitled NRA.
 * I think that demonstrates how problematic WP:COMMONNAME is in this case.
 * NRA is even worse, since there is an extensive disambiguation page covering the other National Rifle Associations around the world as well as many other unrelated organisations (National Restaurant Association, National Revolutionary Army, National Recovery Administration, etc). Notably, WP:en is the only wikipedia (aside from Swedish) to have an NRA disambiguation page because as far as I can tell, every single other language version has the disambiguation at NRA. Whilst WP:en is of course at liberty to set its own policies, it seems an incredible bit of US-exceptionalism to redirect a simple three-letter-acronym to one specific american organisation. That exceptionalism might be justified, but it's probably worthy of more deliberate thought and consideration than its probably had (one person pointed NRA at National Rifle Association 15years ago and nobody has thought about whether that's actually the right thing to do!).
 * WP:CRITERIA (namely Precision & Consistency) would seem to dictate that the article should be full-named just like every other Rifle Association in the world (no US-exceptionalism, per WP:GLOBAL), even if we then have a WP:COMMONNAME discussion about where National Rifle Association redirects to (e.g. the disambiguation page or to the properly titled '...of America' article). Hemmers (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "...it seems an incredible bit of US-exceptionalism to redirect a simple three-letter-acronym to one specific american organisation." I'm not American. In my many years on Wikipedia I have probably called out US-exceptionalism as often as anyone, but I don't see it here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree per WP:CRITERIA
 * I think relying on WP:COMMONNAME would actually support using "NRA" rather than the current title.
 * However, WP:CRITERIA is more 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. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.    •Bobsd•  (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per COMMONNAME and what's said above. No need to WP:BADGER me on this Hemmers, I'm not changing my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu I'm curious what you imply with WP:BADGER. I don't recall ever corresponding with you before, and this is my first (and will remain my only) reply to your post. Should I not reply or engage in discourse? This is a Talk page is it not? I don't think it's unfair to offer one response/rebuttal per person to address the points they have made. This may sound facetious but your comment comes across like an accusation and I'm genuinely unclear what I have done to earn that. If you're simply saying "I'm dropping my opinion in and am not open to further discussion" then fair enough and I apologise if I have unwittingly taken a throwaway comment to imply more than was intended.
 * I haven't chased anyone (much less yourself) around Wikipedia or badgered them on their Talk pages.
 * You are of course entitled to your opinion on the topic at hand. Hemmers (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Replying to every comment is badgering. It is unnecessary and unhelpful. Perhaps it's more accurate to call it "bludgeoning the process". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
Change: In a 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015.

To: In 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015. Folgsta (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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.
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)