Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 3

Criticism - is that all there is?
This article text is around 6600 words. The criticism section is about 473 words. It tries to summarize criticism from many sources. By contrast, the Everytown for Gun Safety article is about 3600 words, and it has about 460 words of criticism that's all from the NRA. That ain't right. Look at Talk:Everytown_for_Gun_Safety. If you guys think the Everytown article is A-OK, then this article oughta get few hundred more words of critical commentary unless you guys really believe that the NRA doesn't get much criticism. Anyone here think that? Felsic2 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your premise is faulty. Yes, the NRA article is much longer because the org is 145 years old. By contrast, Everytown is 2 years old and the parent is only 10 years old. Both have a similar criticism section because neither one goes overboard and gives undue weight to the topic. You also fail to take into account that the NRA had very little controversy around it until around the late 70's-early 80's. If anything, the fact that a 2 (or 10) year old org gets over 50% of the words that a 145 year old one gets may indicate that Everytown is being given too much attention. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The NRA has attracted an incredible amount of criticism. If you think nthe Everytown article is balanced then this one is gonna need a helluva lot more outside virews added to bring it into line. Felsic2 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, your premise is faulty. Further, you seem to think that all criticism is equal. Just because some celebrity, some politician or some activist said something critical doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that WP articles oughta fairly reflect the tye and quantity of criticism. Felsic2 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have specific items that you think should be included, then let's address them. Just trying to compare word counts is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Word count is kinda related to WP:DUE. So you think all significant criticisms have been included in both articles, with neither being inadequate nor excessive? OK, that's one view. Below, you complain about unused sources that are critical to the NRA, and here you say that all criticism is included. Can both be true? Felsic2 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, DUE/UNDUE isn't demonstrated with word count. Once again, I'll ask you what SPECIFIC thing you want to include. No hypothetical or circular linking of different discussions. Give specifics. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article needs to summarize all the significant criticism. Don't worry about it. I'll do it if no one else will. Felsic2 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The key is "significant" and frankly, I question your ability to determine what is significant. Your refusal to tell anyone what specific criticism you want to include, despite multiple requests, doesn't indicate a desire to build consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you keep posting replies. I told you what needs to be included: everything significant that's not already included. Don't worry, I'll do it if you or someone else doesn't do it first. Felsic2 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "everything significant that's not already included" is not specific. I'm sorry you struggle with the concept, but it's an important one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

BOD and State associations
I added the list of BOD and the state associations, two elements of the NRA's leadership and organization. Both are very hard to find on the NRA website. There are some controversies about the BOD which oughta be included. I just read something about an effort to unseat Gover Norquist. Felsic2 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, it was deleted without discussion, despite all the time and effort I put into it. I'll put it back, but for some reaons the supporteers of the NRA want to keep its BOD a secret. Felsic2 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Recentism is an essay. I don't see anything in there that justifies deleitng text with sources that's pertinent to the article. Lots of "recent" information is added ot this and other articles. Some explanation for which survives and which is cut is needed.Felsic2 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to keep it a secret. But a list of 75 temporary people the majority of whom are not notable in any way with no commentary is not of encyclopedic value. that something is sourced is the bare minimum for inclusion, not guaranteeing its inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be merit to listing some notable BOD members, but those who don't have any established notability start looking like a directory. List the notables and a link to the current page at the NRA site. Nothing is hidden, but everything doesn't belong either. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to show what a great guy I am, I've taken your advice, well, some of it, and condensed the list to current and past notable directors. I also folded in the "celebrity leadership" section, which was redundant and, c'mon - celebrities? I'm going to add the rest of the presidents, too- can't see any reason to include only selected presidents. Felsic2 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that makes you a great guy, but ok......and let's not slip in POV language like "shadowy". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "shadowy"? Are we forbidden from including any negative material? I don't think so. If you have a complaint about the source let's hear it. Otherwise I'll restore it in some fashion. Felsic2 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course negatives can be included, but the POV of a single writer shouldn't cloud the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV at a bare minimum, but more importantly. WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPGROUP. You have a single opinion source that described the group as shadowy. unless you can show that terms like that are widely used, it is a significant neutrality issue. I note that you edit warred it in without consensus yet one more time. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait, WTF are you saying about edit warring? I've altered it everytime, trying to meet the ever-changing objections. Don't throw around inaccurate accusations. Felsic2 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've attributed the POV. Where's this rule that all criticism has to be widely used? Does this apply to all articles? Like, for instance the huge chunk of NRA criticism in the Everytown article? Felsic2 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the Everytown article, it has a talk page of its own. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And, of course, Miguel Escopeta reverts without discussion. Good old Wikipedia. Some things never change around here.Felsic2 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

While the WND is probably weak as an RS, Knox is a notable voice (particularly as criticism from the inside). More importantly, its actual criticism, vs an epithet. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Unused sources


All of these books are entirely or mostly about the NRA. Several are from reputable authors and/or university publishing houses. But, so far as I can tell, the article doesn't cite any of them. Instead it cites poor quality news sources like "World News Daily" and "The Daily Caller", and primary sources like Guidestar and foundationcenter.org. Until this article uses the best available sources it'll be a piece of crap. Felsic2 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting how many of those sources are written with the POV of being anti-NRA. For example, look at the one from the Violence Policy Center, another non-profit that is diametrically opposed to the NRA, not only openly opposing them, but financially supporting legal actions. See their about page. Talk about having a POV. Yet you submit it is a stellar source, without which, this article is "crap". Niteshift36 (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, talk about missing the point. I'm just pasting the list of books about the NRA. Many are from university presses, etc. Yet instead recogninzing the problem you try to score a cheap shot byt attacking one of them. Felsic2 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss the point at all. You provided a curated list of sources. Most of them are written with an anti-NRA POV. Take note that I said MOST of them, not just one. So, in your haste to give a snarky answer, it was YOU who missed the point. I didn't pick a single one to "attack", I picked most of them.....then I used one to expand my illustration. Try again. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We should use the best sources, regarldess of their POV. Or should we compromise our standards and use bad sources so long as they're sympathetic to the NRA? Is that what you want? None of these, not one, is ever used as a source for this article. Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they needed to be sympathetic. You just made that up. You just declare that these are all "best available sources" and act like we're supposed to drop everything. Once again, what SPECIFIC things from the sources do you think should be included? Enough with the vague and hypothetical. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Best available sources? Well, duh. Read WP:V: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." That includes all those university press books.
 * What should we include? A summary of what they say.
 * I ain't saying you've gotta drop anything to help this article. I'm saying that this article will never be up to WP standards until someone summarizes the best available sources. Felsic2 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you talk, but fail to answer the actual question. Have you held political office? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in conversing with you, since all you do is hector me and revert. Felsic2 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've asked you a very simple question that you refuse to answer. Sorry you can't fool me into forgetting about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't find it surprising that those books almost all appear to be seriously anti-NRA. But if you can find information in them that is due, and worth adding in a neutral manner, while attributing the POV stuff to its authors, then go right ahead. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can, treating these sources like any other quality sources. But you guys, who watch over this article like hawks, reverting reflexively, also have a responsibility for improving it. This'll never be a featured-quality article until the best sources are used. University press sources are, by general agreement, the best sources, regardless of what view they have of this organization. Felsic2 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Give your paranoia a rest for a second. Did I not give you a suggestion about including notables etc that you did and it has stayed? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Letters
The NRA joined the American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil liberties organizations in joint letters to President Clinton on 10 January 1994 and to the House Committee on the Judiciary on 24 October 1995 calling for federal law enforcement reforms citing the 1992 Ruby Ridge and 1993 Waco siege incidents involving the BATF, FBI, and the U.S. Marshalls Service.[]

This was under the heading "Relationship with other organizations". Sending out a few joint letters isn't really a relationship. In fact, I don't see this is as being especially noteworthy at all, given how there are more significant things to cover in this article. Felsic2 (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if this was ever published beyond the SAF journal. It's obscure. Felsic2 (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * By itself I think that is probably weak, but can serve as one element of an expanded "relationships" section. the relationship between the NRA and other orgs is certainly notable and important, and the relationship with the ACLU in particular is more notable due to the alternating dissonance and resonance between the two groups (I note that over time the ACLU has moved to support more gun rights cases, but thats probably more appropriate for their article than here) That particular factoid is sourcable to a number of sources


 * http://thehill.com/policy/technology/320357-nra-claims-nsa-illegally-created-a-gun-database
 * http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nra-fearing-gun-registry-joins-aclu-opposing-nsa-phone-records-f8C11161839
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/04/nra-joins-aclu-suit-against-nsa-surveillance/2768575/

Other sources for the nra/aclu nexus Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150605041129/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/05guns.html
 * If yu want to expand "relationships" then it could be in the "affiliates" section. There's a whole list of related businesses, for starters. Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just an observation...... doesn't the NRA partnering with the ACLU about LE reform or about NSA surveillance (non- gun control issues), indicate that they are, in fact, a civil rights organization? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Love how that observation was met with silence Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Giffords
How many fucking times are you guys gonna delete well-sourced info just cause it's a little negative? Delete cause it doens't have consensus?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=712900803&oldid=712900558 That's ridiculuous. Nothing has consneus here unless it's pro-NRA. There oughta be another ArbCom case to deal with the ownership of this article. I'm sick of this shit. Felsic2 (talk)
 * Maybe you don't understand that just being sourced doesn't mean it has a free pass to inclusion. Hundreds of reliable sources are writing about Kim Kardashian's topless selfie, but that doesn't mean it belongs in her bio. In this case, you have a single person expressing a personal view. Why is her personal view any more worthy of inclusion than say Chuck Norris, Ted Nugent or any other notable person? Your reason for wanting it isn't because it's profound, it's solely because it's negative. And if you're finding multiple editors removing it and you're the only one restoring it, that (should) tells you that you need to build consensus or find some other material. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ArbCom would almost certainly decline the case at this point. If you think there is something actionable take it to AE. But beware the boomerang, your own actions have much to scrutinize. FWIW, I would probably be in support of including the gifford's comment as being representative of the GC POV of the NRA. But the fact that you added it and then it was reverted is not an issue. Thats the way WP:BRD works. We are now in the D phase. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Predecessor
predecessor    = Company A, 22d regiment, New York National Guard, C.O. Captain George Wingate []

This is part of the infobox. There's nothing about a "predecessor" in the text, and I don't get in what way the National Guard is a predecessor of the NRA. Maybe Wingate led one then the other, but I think it's a stretch. Here's the text of the source. The citatation doesn't have any page number. Can someone put something in the text to explain this? Otherwise I'm gonna cut it out as original research. Felsic2 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you'll actually wait for someone to look into it rather than your normal wait an hour and say "I'll do it myself". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, you, there's no consensus for this so maybe I OUGHTA JUST DELETE IT, LIKE YOU DOFelsic2 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you mean "restore the orginal version". That's what I do. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with your reasoning and analysis of the source felsic. Its probably not appropriate for the infobox, but would be a useful tidbit in the early history section, as the source does back the initial origin of the NRA as essentially being a training organization to train members of the guard. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, the National Guard did not exist in 1871, when the NRA was founded. The guard did not come along until about 3 decades later.  Still, the original purpose of the NRA was marksmanship training for civilians, to prepare them for possible future military service.  This was based on the observation of the lack of marksmanship skills that many conscripts from the North suffered from during the then relatively recently-ended Civil War.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Miguel, the National Guard in this case is the National Guard of the State of New York. Page "x" of the manual linked indicates that it was written specifically for the NGoNY. We mostly cover this already in the National_Rifle_Association section. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reconstruction and Freedmen
I have heard and read that NRA advocated for the rights of former slaves to carry weapons, and taught them how to use them, during and after Reconstruction as a way to protect them against the predations of the Klan, former Confederates, etc. I was surprised to see no mention of that on the page. Can any historians weigh in? Czrisher (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a few stories here and there that show the NRA was/is active in this area, but the extent to which this was a driver or even major focus has been significantly exaggerated. If you think something in this vein should be included, finding appropriate sourcing would be the first step. Negroes_with_Guns_(book) might be a good starting point. Most of the "black NRA chapters" stuff starts during the 50s/60s tho, not during reconstruction.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/05/harry-alford/nra-founded-fight-kkk-black-leader-says/

Civil Rights/Liberties Org Categorization
Should the NRA article be placed into the Civil rights/liberties categories Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * support Although it is not universally described as such, there are multiple reliable sources that call the NRA a civil rights/liberties org in their own voice. This includes notable opinions, academic works, and reference works. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support listing it as a civil right organization. I guess the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund doesn't hurt the position. And did the old discussion really reach a consensus?Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support listing NRA as a civil rights organization. As an inclusionist, I see no inconsistency in categorizing NRA recognition of the fundamental right of the weak to feel secure against predatory rapists and robbers. While some may theorize other means of attaining such security, widespread police use of firearms validates the old equalizer rhyme: Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size. When danger threatens, call on me; and I will equalize. Thewellman (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see how RfCs go on gun topics, so I don't really recognize the legitimacy of this little poll. This is a contentious category. I offer a compromise. Put the categories of Gun control advocacy groups‎, Gun control advocates, Gun rights advocacy groups, Gun rights advocates‎ in the Civil liberties category. That'll bring in all sides of the debate. Just like [Category:Reproductive rights]] Felsic2 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Question - exactly which category is being proposed? Felsic2 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gee, what one did you remove and claim there was consensus to remove? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You just have to have a comback for everything I right, eh? OK, so then you tell me what "the Civil rights/liberties categories" are that we're voting on in this lopsided poll. Felsic2 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need to explain it to you. If you don't grasp the obvious, I doubt explaining it will be productive. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support summoned by bot; initial thought was 'no' but based on preponderance of sources I say 'yes' LavaBaron (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm thinking it's kind of spin, but since it's out there in use or question the just follow the cites then yes label it as such. As a personal opinion, it doesn't really fit my mental model but does seem consistent to the Civil rights article start "Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom".  Markbassett (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Felsic2, calling the NRA a civil rights group is very debatable to some. We should always acknowledge that there are opposing viewpoints to keep neutrality. For that reason, just put them in the category of Gun rights advocacy groups, that's a fair compromise. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The NRA has partnered with the ACLU on other issues, such as law enforcement reform and opposing the NSA surveillance. That tends to support the notion that the are active in supporting other civil rights as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While it may be debatable to some, that doesn't take away the fact that the NRA is a civil liberties organization, similar to how the ACLU is a civil liberties organization, even though the government and police may not always agree with it. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support the NRA is there to support the civil right to own and carry weapons for self-defense, which is a civil right and civil liberty. It is exactly the same as the ACLU and the First Amendment. The NRA is there to protect Second Amendment rights. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The NRA was founded in 1871 and is the first civil rights organization. This is easily verifiable and definitely should be included.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – The description is backed up by plenty of reliable sources. The right to gun ownership is a form of civil right, regardless of its merit. — Nizolan  (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Sir Joseph and because multiple reliable sources describe it as such (per above as well). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Summoned by bot based on the preponderance of sources. I would note that no real argument has been provided by the oppose votes. The right to own a gun is still a "civil liberty," even if its existence is highly in dispute. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
The most relevant sources to back the cat :
 * Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues "The NRA [...] is the oldest continously operating civil liberties organization in the United States
 * NYT David Kopel "Today, with 4 million members, the N.R.A. is one of the largest civic organizations in the U.S., and by far the largest civil liberties organization on the planet"
 * NYT David D. Cole The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today.
 * The Urban Institute The Scope and Dimensions of U. S. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Organizations at the Beginning of the 21st Century   It is difficult to imagine a vibrant, inclusive civil society in America without civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Rifle Association (NRA) or without organizations advocating on behalf of underrepresented minority Interests. "
 * Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right "The [NRA ...] is the oldest civil rights organization in the United states from the perspective of the right wing in america"
 * Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties (no text, but listed in a civil rights encyclopedia) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What does Giffords say? Felsic2 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What does Giffords say about the NRA as a civil right organization? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As Gaijin42 - he's the one who says she's a reliable source for this issue. Until her view is included, it'll be one-sided. Felsic2 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=4A7UAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&dq=nra+%22civil+rights%22+organization&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLgOH49dTLAhWGxIMKHcc8COQQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=%22civil%20rights%22&f=false Felsic2 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you since you keep repeating. What in that book do you think needs to go in here. Be specific. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ask Gaijin42 - he's the one who offered Gifford as a source. He's the one who has repatedly refused to say why he included her. Felsic2 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since none of you could be bothered, I added it. Felsic2 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Be bothered? I asked you a flipping question and you refuse to answer it. You're becoming a parody of yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Friends of NRA
Friends of NRA is an article about a group which raises money for the NRA Foundation. The NRA Foundation does not have an article. If the Foundation and its friends are notable then we oughta have a separate article about them. If the Foundation isn't notable them I don't know why the Friends are notable. The article is very lacking in secondary sources. I see three option: create an article about the Foundation and merge the content there; merge the content here; or delete it. Does anyone here have a preference? Felsic2 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If sourcing is truly not available, I would think a foundation article, and then merge to the foundation article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there sources for the foundation? Felsic2 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there are no secondary sources for the Friends article. The fourth option is just to make it a redirect to this page and not merge any of the promotional material. Felsic2 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly enough to pass GNG, but it might start out fairly stubby. A few I found offhand id=zyNWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&dq=nra+foundation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXupOkkcPLAhULx4MKHaIRA-cQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=nra%20foundation&f=false Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=KRmDBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA567&dq=%22nra+foundation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj795nCoMPLAhUDk4MKHT2pC1o4ChDoAQgvMAI#v=onepage&q=%22nra%20foundation%22&f=false* https://books.google.com/books?
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=pjgVCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA163&dq=nra+foundation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXupOkkcPLAhULx4MKHaIRA-cQ6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&q=nra%20foundation&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=VvNb5s8Z3b0C&pg=PA157&dq=%22nra+foundation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK2vu7oMPLAhXBlIMKHcIiDdEQ6AEIWzAK#v=onepage&q=%22nra%20foundation%22&f=false* https://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC&pg=PT801&dq=%22nra+foundation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj795nCoMPLAhUDk4MKHT2pC1o4ChDoAQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=%22nra%20foundation%22&f=false


 * Do your best. Next time I see the article I'll just mark it for deletion if it hasn't been improved. Felsic2 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I looked at the listed books and they only seem to have passing references to the Foundation. Those would not be sufficient to establish notability. Felsic2 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I filed a deletion request, or whatever you call it. Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_22. Felsic2 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Friends of NRA didn't find consensus for a merge. This merge section has been here for a month with little participation, so I'm removing the merge templates for now with no prejudice against a merger proposal in the future. Notifying all the participants of the AfD as interested parties to increase participation if that is done would be optimal. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Oldest" Civil Rights Organization
The question of "Civil Rights/Liberties Org Categorization" was debated in the now-closed thread, and I have no objection to this article receiving that categorization. However, what does seem questionable to me is the sentence which is currently at the end of the first paragraph of this article, which describes the NRA as "the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States." Though a citation is provided (to the Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues, which makes a similar claim with "The NRA, founded in 1871, is the oldest continually operating civil liberties organization in the United States") the assertion still seems very debatable. By this article's own larger account, the NRA was founded to promote rifle marksmanship, and did not begin to direct attention to gun policy before 1934, when its Legislative Affairs Division was created. Furthermore, the article also maintains that the NRA supported gun-CONTROL legislation through at least 1968. Only in the 1970s did the organization begin to champion the individual right to bear arms as a serious policy concern, in opposition to gun regulation.

So while the NRA has existed since 1871, its claim to being "America's longest standing civil-rights organization" seems very shaky. The National Association for the Deaf, the NAACP, and the ACLU, among other examples, all seem to have been focused on civil rights issues for a much longer period of time, despite having begun their life as organizations later.

These counterpoints are made later in the article, under "Political Activity." However, the claim is presented at the top of the article without commentary. I would recommend changing the sentence in the first paragraph of the article (currently "It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States") to something like:

"The NRA describes itself as the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States."

or

"By some accounts, it is the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States."

Either revision would seem to present more objectively what is clearly a reasonably disputed claim, while not dismissing the claim as totally without merit. SquidPebblePoliceman (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree we should probably not be using WP:WikiVoice here, but the question is how to best attribute it. Your first proposal is certainly true (the NRA describes itself that way), but insufficient, as there are others (such as the encyclopedia) which also state the "fact" in their own voice. The latter proposal is also true, but suffers from WP:WEASEL. Because this is the lead, and we give details in the body, I think we can get away with the weasel. per the guideline : The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is a verifiable claim that it is the oldest civil liberties organization, and when it was founded one of its goals was to allow freed slaves access to firearms. VERIFIABLE is Wiki's policy, not necessarily truth, but in this case, we have truth and verifiability. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a verifiable _claim_. And we should report that claim. But we should not repeat that claim as objective truth. Per WP:NPOV there is significant disagreement, and we need to accurately represent that with WP:BALANCE. Also, the slave gun thing is pretty much debunked. There is no good sourcing for it. There is some sourcing for the NRA and (Black) civil rights during the civil rights movement, but thats 85 years later, not the founding. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It should not change. This issue is getting old. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016
Could somebody change the "USA" to "U.S." within "| location = Fairfax, Virginia, USA"?

96.255.203.83 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I said to make it "U.S." not "US".

96.255.203.83 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Mudwater (Talk) 04:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Error
Presumably "In 205" should be "In 2015" based on link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed. Felsic2 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Getting some eyes on the Eddie Eagle page
I figured this was a good place to get some eyes to look at some material that is in dispute on the Eddie Eagle page. The TV show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee made light of it being "easier to buy a gun than an Eddie Eagle costume". This material has been removed by two editors and twice restored by one. Please take a look. [] Springee (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016
Under MEMBERSHIP, the NRA article states that the majority of NRA members support Universal Background Checks, citing only one study. That is very questionable and other surveys should be cited. Moreover, the recent (11/2016) Nevada ballot showed ALL voters split almost exactly 50% on the issue. That is obviously more reliable than a potentially biased survey of only a sample of the population. Chicspandex (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sampling is an accepted method of surveying public opinion. It is not necessarily any more biased than other methods, including voter polls. Further, the vote in Nevada involved on small state, the majority of whose voters are problably not NRA members. So it'd be comparing apples and oranges. If there are other surveys of NRA members on the subject then we ought to include those too. Can you provide some links to them? Felsic2 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Dane 2007  talk  03:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

President 2003 - 2005
Under Organizational Structure and Finances -Presidents, Kayne B. Robinson should be listed as serving from 2003-2005. Mr. Robinson should also be listed under Board of Directors. Christa3756 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I added him to the list of presidents. The list of directors is limited to those notable enough for a standalone article. I also added his current executive positions. Felsic2 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016
The current text in the History section should be changed from this:

"Recognizing a need for better training, Wingate traveled to Europe and observed European armies' marksmanship training programs."

to this:

"Recognizing a need for better training, Wingate sent emissaries to Canada, Britain and Germany to observe militia and armies' marksmanship training programs."

There is a general omission of Canada's effect on the formation of the NRA which seems strange, since there was a significant and direct effect. Other elements missing is that Canadians helped train Americans, and NRA members competed in Canada and started winning there.

Excerpt from:

In 1871, dismayed by the poor shooting they had seen among Union recruits in the Civil War, and sharing the popular view that individual marksmanship would settle the fate of nations, Gen. George Wingate and Col. William C. Church followed the example set by Canada and Britain and founded the National Rifle Association to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” For help, they turned to the experts. The NRA sent emissaries to Canada, Germany, and England to confer with expert marksmen and military thinkers, and Canadian rifle shooters were soon helping to instruct the NRA’s members. In 1872, when the NRA started building the first rifle range in the United States at Creedmoor on Long Island, they enlisted the assistance of their Canadian counterparts.

Title Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun Author A.J. Somerset Genre Non-Fiction Publisher Biblioasis

can be found here: www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/12/20/how-canadians-helped-create-the-nra.html Nr in calgary (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Good idea. While the page is semi-protected, that only prevents you from editing until you're confirmed as a user, which takes a few days. If you'd like to make some edits to other articles, you can come back after four days and ten edits, and then make the change yourself. Felsic2 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't look like "Nr" is coming back I made the change myself. Felsic2 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done per above —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

America's longest-standing civil rights organization?
I just changed "It is also the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States" to "It bills itself as the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the United States." As I said in my edit, this respects and reflects the fact, noted in the article's Political Advocacy sub-section, that there is some dispute as to whether NRA can actually claim that distinction. This actually brought the article back into accord with a previous consensus talked out in 2004. My edit was immediately reverted by User:Miguel Escopeta, apparently not having noticed or not caring for the distinction discussed in the article and my citation. I move the conversation here. Thoughts? Czrisher (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is really rather simple. By even the reference you inserted, which I removed, the date of the NRA's founding in 1871 is older than the other organizations listed founding dates of 1880 and 1909, respectively. Going with what the reference says, and which was already noted in the article, it seems rather clear that the NRA predates these other organizations founding dates.  Irrespective of what it bills itself, 1871 is clearly before 1880 and 1909.  All three are civil rights organizations.  Why insert biased language of "It bills itself" when the issue is whether 1871 came before 1880 and 1909. Seems rather simple to me. What distinction is missing?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, it is the oldest, and it is often discussed on the talk page. You can search the archives for it, but there is no consensus to change it to "so called" or "bills itself as" when the sources are clear as day. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Oldest", yes; "civil rights", maybe not. Their focus is so narrow, it's hard to call it something besides "gun rights" (or "gun owner rights"), unlike (frex) ACLU.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because it focuses mostly on one civil right, it is less meaningful? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just dispute "civil rights", which I take to have a broader base. "Less meaningful" than what?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like focusing mostly on one civil right makes it less important than looking at a broader slate. Regardless, gun ownership, as protected by the second amendment, it a civil right. Probably why those are called the Bill of Rights. And why are we referencing a 2004 discussion as "previous consensus", when there have been subsequent discussions?Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I second Niteshift26 on this; at least in the United States, gun rights are civil rights.Aaron Muir Hamilton &#60;aaron@correspondwith.me&#62; (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue, to me, is not about which civil rights NRA supports. I will stipulate, for purposes of this discussion, that it supports the Second Amendment rights of Americans. However, the article suggests that it took on this object only in the middle of the first half of the 20th Century. If the text said that NRA was the oldest organization that focused on a civil right, that might convey this situation. (I would argue that, if this is the preferred interpretation of "longest-standing", it cannot possibly be an accurate statement. The Catholic Church, to name but one example, also focuses on protecting civil rights. In so far as neither it nor NRA does only civil rights work, it is older.) To my eye, "longest-standing" suggests that it has focused on civil rights for the longest time, which would not be satisfied by the date of its creation. I do not insist that NRA is thus proved not to be the longest-standing, only that it would no longer to be proved to be the organization with the longest standing as a civil rights organization, wherefore my edit. Is the distinction I am drawing clear? Would anyone care to speak to it? I will add that I did not see the many discussions (talk) suggested were in the archives; perhaps I missed some that would resolve the issue and I would be pleased to be directed to them. Czrisher (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017
Mango321 (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Website NRA.org I want to add the NRA's membership page to the Wikipedia page description bar.

https://membership.nra.org/Join/Annuals/prospect?utm_source=Bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Bing_Search
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thank you for your suggestion but you might want to read the policy on external links The NRA's official website is already linked. It is the job of any organization's own web developers to make it easy for interested readers to find their "join" link and not Wikipedia's to make it easy for anyone to join any organization.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

SYNTH?
I removed what I considered SYNTH content discussing "similar claims" from NAACP and NAD: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This was however reverted with edit summary "Nope". I would appreciate a clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is not synthesis since external sources discuss this very topic. I would suggest a citation tag instead. Springee (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The NRA is not a RS for self-serving exceptional claims about itself
The user Terrorist96 reverted this edit, citing WP:ABOUTSELF. The edit rationale is extremely disingenuous and shameless, given that WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly says that self-published sources should only be used when "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". I advise the user to revert this himself to demonstrate good faith. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit rationale fits perfectly (don't call my rationale disingenuous/shameless). Saying they are the oldest civil rights organization is not unduly self-serving. Saying they are the bestest of the best civil rights organization would be. And it's not an exceptional claim either. And there are no claims of third parties or reason to doubt its authenticity. This is long-standing content and you need consensus to remove it. The lead also contains a similar statement cited to a third party so your self-published concerns don't apply there.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ABC-CLIO is a crap press. References to this press have been removed from other sources, including the Irish slave myth page. Please explain how a group that promoted sports shooting is a "civil liberties organization". The Wikipedia makes zero mention of the NRA fighting for the rights of gun owners or lobbying politicians until 1934. The claim has also been contested in this Salon piece. Please find any RS that refer to NRA as the "oldest civil rights organization". I've been trying for some time and coming up with nothing except the NRA saying this again and again about itself to lend legitimacy to itself. If you can't reliably source exceptional claims, they go out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an organization that has been extensively covered by scholars and news outlets. It should be absolutely no problem substantiating claims about the organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources that describe the NAACP as the oldest civil rights organization: NPR, Baltimore Sun, NYU Press book, JHU Press, Harvard University Press. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources that call NAD the oldest civil rights organization: NAD, Routledge book. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ABC-CLIO is a crap press. Kindly link me to the RSN consensus that deems ABC-CLIO a "crap press" that should not be used. References to this press have been removed from other sources, including the Irish slave myth page. That's irrelevant. Please explain how a group that promoted sports shooting is a "civil liberties organization". That's not my job. The claim has also been contested in this Salon piece. Yes, and that's why the second half of the sentence makes note of that. Please find any RS that refer to NRA as the "oldest civil rights organization". We already have, the ABC-CLIO publication, plus their own website per WP:ABOUTSELF. If you can't reliably source exceptional claims, they go out of the article. If you want to remove sourced, long-standing content, you need consensus.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cited multiple reliable sources that contradict that the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization. You have a ABC-CLIO book that regurgitates NRA's own description of itself. If the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization, why you can't find a single academic book from a reputable press, peer-reviewed journal article or reliable news outlet that describes it as such? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to summarize:
 * (1) We have two weak sources (Salon, Media Matters) that conflict with two other weak sources (NRA, ABC-CLIO book) as to the claim that the NRA is the "oldest civil rights organization".
 * (2) We have lots of top notch reliable sources (NPR, good university presses) that describe the NAACP as the "oldest civil rights organization".
 * (3) Even though the NRA has received extensive news coverage and scholarly attention, nobody can find anything in a good reliable source that substantiates the claim that it's the oldest civil rights organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've cited multiple reliable sources that contradict that the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization. Again, it's been noted. Both statements are retained per NPOV. If the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization, why you can't find a single academic book from a reputable press, peer-reviewed journal article or reliable news outlet that describes it as such? We have. But here's more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. We're now going in circles. Feel free to start an RfC if you feel so strongly about this.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of joke? Of the three sources that were accessible through Google Books, the two academic presses explicitly say that it's the NRA that calls itself the oldest civil rights organization. The authors of the books don't call it that. Do you know the difference between describing something and quoting the organization's self-description? The third source that can actually be accessed is "American Cowboy" magazine, a magazine that neither you, me or anyone else has read or heard about. So in a desperate effort to come up with RS, you cited books that can't be accessed, books that don't describe the NRA as the oldest civil rights org (they quote the NRA) and some random magazine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the discussion above because it seems to be spectacularly missing the point. Our article says, and I quote, The NRA's website says the organisation is .... The NRA ref is referencing that claim, by the NRA itself, which is fine. We don't need a secondary source saying that the NRA claims they are X. Moreover, we are not saying The NRA is ... - in which case an NRA ref would be, clearly, unacceptable. As it is, I don't see an issue, be it a claim by the NRA or by the NAACP. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede also states it in Wikivoice. That said, we generally don't let organizations make exceptional self-serving claims about themselves even if quoted, so both the Wiki-voice stuff and the NRA's political rhetoric don't belong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

 * Comment -- even if attributed to NRA, I find this content to by WP:UNDUE:
 * The NRA's website says the organisation is "America's longest-standing civil rights organization"...
 * I don't think it's appropriate and neutral to include this claim. I've removed it, along with the associated commentary on NAACP etc.

I'm preserving this content here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you guys even look at the archives. This has been discussed a lot. Like this RFC: or this discussion  Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36, where has consensus for this been established? The first case is related but not the same and the second has no consensus, and your input was "it shouldn't change, this is getting old". Also, consensus can change. Don't dismiss an as-of-yet unresolved issue. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The removed statement was that NRA claimed that status, it was not even a statement that it has that status.  North8000  (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Use those, and other discussions, to look at the sources discussed before. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with and the others that this claim certainly cannot be present in Wikipedia's own voice. If attributed in-text ("The NRA describes itself as..."), it's less obviously ridiculous, but still undue in the lead section. The claim is mentioned in the body of the article, and this should be sufficient.
 * This is especially true because the claim is an extraordinary one. A brief mention in the body that this is the NRA's own claim is probably fine. Neutralitytalk 03:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And I would note that this claim is expressly contradicted by reliable sources, e.g.:
 * The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy ("The NAACP is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States")
 * The Encyclopedia of African American History (Oxford University Press) (NAACP is "the oldest civil rights organization in the United States").
 * Peace and Freedom: The Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements in the 1960s ( University of Pennsylvania Press) (NAACP is "America's largest and oldest civil rights organization").
 * Even the sources that make reference to the NRA claim expressly say that the claim is only accepted by the right: The Encyclopedia of Politics says that the NRA "is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States from the perspective of the right wing in America "). Neutralitytalk 03:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Long standing edits require consensus to remove. The onus is on you. Start an RfC.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We do have a consensus to remove it. It's untrue and unduly self-serving. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit had gone unchallenged since April 2016 when added by . Where is this consensus you are speaking of? Must have missed that RfC...Terrorist96 (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is now challenged and been removed by multiple editors. You are the only one who wants to keep it, so you're edit warring against multiple editors, many of whom (including at least one administrator) who are far more experienced than yourself. You are the one who needs to keep discussing on this page, not restore it, and start that RfC.
 * BTW, to make this an official warning, you're close to 3RR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're the one who wants to remove a long-standing edit. Onus is on you, not me.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Onus is on you" Oh, really? Since it's a challenged edit (& I'd remove it, too), I'd say the onus is on you to show why it should stay in.   TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  11:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that some editors don't like. The quote must obviously be attributed to the NRA, just remove the wikivoice from the article and add the reliably sourced claim. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources dopn't seem to have an issue using the quote about being the oldest, attributing it to the NRA,, , , , , so I'm not sure why we have an issue with reporting that the NRA says it. Additionally, the Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right makes the statement  Niteshift36 (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The organization clearly claims to be the oldest civil rights organization and a number of reliable sources state the NRA says as much.  Since few 3rd parties seem to agree and often when 3rd parties mention the claim they do in context of "The NRA says", it seems appropriate to mention the information in attributed (vs Wikipedia) voice.  I see no reason to exclude the information from the lead assuming it is clearly attributed to the NRA. Springee (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What other Wikipedia pages do is irrelevant. That said, as far as I can tell, the practice on Wikipedia pages on controversial or political organizations is to remove puffery and dubious self-serving claims from articles, especially ledes. When that type of text survives it's usually because it was inserted into ledes by advocates for the organization/individual or someone associated with the organization/individual, and nobody has been arsed to remove it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, what other pages do isn't entirely irrelevant. When this alleged "puffery" is repeated over and over by reliable sources, it stops being just "puffery" and becomes something we can attribute to the org. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with the majority that its best to remove as there are no reliable sources for this. In fact there are a lot more references that say another organization is. If kept it should left written that its the NRA self declaring itself and also not in the lead since a self declaration without support is not lead worthy, let alone should not be in it, in this case. I removed it from the lead, obvious from the comments and references here, but left it in the body for more discussion for others to try and find better references for inclusion. ContentEditman (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead is a perfectly acceptable place for a self declaratory statement so long as it's not in Wikipedia voice. Many articles about company's and organizations will include self proclaimed statements.  There is no reason why the NRA page shouldn't given that it's on the company's home page.  I agree that there is consensus to remove the claim in Wikipedia voice.  However, I think a better solution is to change it to an attributed claim.  Articles about the NRA have noted that the NRA makes this claim (this establishes weight).  The claim, while debatable, is acknowledged as true by some groups outside of the NRA (though typically politically allied with the NRA).  A reasonable claim can be made to support the statement (The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and the NRA is focused on protecting that right... though, unlike the NAACP, it wasn't established for that purpose).  Regardless, there is more than sufficient weight to support inclusion in the lead with appropriate attribution.  Springee (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I find this content to be undue, especially in the lead. The context that these claims are presented in often does not lend itself to simply restating it here. For example, from the Politico article linked above:
 * "At last year’s meeting in Louisville, CEO Wayne LaPierre referred to the 146-year-old NRA as the world’s “oldest, largest, and most effective” civil rights organization. Staunch NRA supporters, self-conscious of the group’s reputation as inhospitable to minorities, hearken back to a time when the gun rights organization did things like charter a black-run chapter in the 1950s so members could defend themselves against the Ku Klux Klan. (...) But there’s no escaping that whatever common ground might have existed between minorities and the NRA eroded as the group’s opposition to all forms of gun control became largely synonymous with the conservatism of the Republican Party and its predominantly white voters..."
 * Not every self-serving claim belongs in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , so you're bringing in an editorial content to complain about a factual item? The lead is a perfect place to mention the age of the group. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you followed all this discussion? I don't believe anyone is trying to remove the NRAs age, just the claim they are the oldest civil rights organization. That is not a fact and most references seem to show that clearly. ContentEditman (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * With numerous RS's repeating the claim and 2 independant books making the claim in their own, dismissing it out of hand doesn't feel right. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources are not reporting/making anything, they are just writing what someone else has said. That is very telling. If a news sources says "George Washington was the first president of the US..." is very different than "The George Washington history group says George Washington was the first president of the US...". The first statement is a statement of fact that can be easily proven. The 2nd is at best an dubious claim that the reporting agency will not make and will only say thats what that group says. And the books do not even come close to meeting the guidelines as a reliable source for such a statement. This claim, that has no reliable sources, should not be in the article, and definitely should not be in the lead. ContentEditman (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to stop claiming there's a consensus here. Yes, the RS's are reporting it.... they are reporting "the source said this", which is exactly what we're doing with the inclusion. Sources frequently do this for all sorts of things, whether it's claims of illegal conduct (the govt claims that X stole money) or other actions. The sources have reported the claim. Both books are RS's, despite your wishes otherwise. You claim the publisher is "crap", yet provide nothing to support it beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why aren't you at RSN, getting support for that position instead of edit-warring here? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By my count, five different editors have removed this claim from the lead. It has serious WP:WEIGHT & WP:POV issues. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This constitutes "rough consensus" in my mind. The suggestion that its removal requires an RFC as a long standing edit does not hold water. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Terrorist96 (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which links to Rough consensus: "...consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred". Does this clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't simply count people who removed it. I see at least 4 that have indicated that it should stay in the discussion. 5-4 isn't a rough consensus, that's just counting votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus that the information should not be included in Wikipedia voice. There is not a consensus for total removal from the lead.  Weight for the claim has been put forth.  I don't think those in favor of out right removal have made strong a policy based case.  The fact that the material has been there for a while would suggest to me that the smallest change needed to address the consensus concern, Wikipedia voice, should be made.  That means add attribution rather than total removal. Springee (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017
The birthday for the NRA is wrong on Wikipedia. Wiki says Nov 16 1871 and in fact its Nov 17 1871. This can be verified on nra.org and it says"After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president." Koalame (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First know that organizations don't have 'birthdays'. Wikipedia only mentioned 'founding day' which is sourced to NY Times and it may not be necessarily same day as the day of granting charter. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Opening Article Claim
Hi. This article opens with the phrase, "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights and civil liberties." That is a sweeping statement, especially the last claim that argues that apparently, according to the Wikipedia editor's assertion that the NRA advocates for civil rights. This suggests and implies, assuming you have reasonable logical skills, that the NRA also advocates for the civil rights of victims of guns. Is that true? Has the NRA ever argued on behalf of those that have been threatened, assaulted or killed because of guns? Has the NRA ever advocated on their behalf? The opening sentence can make this claim, but it needs (unless this is meant to be a public relations article) to clarify whose civil rights are they protecting. Secondly, guns by themselves (even under the U.S. Constitution) do not have any rights at all - only people do. So this is simply an erroneous claim. Miguel Escopeta has somehow included a condition surrounding individuals but that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with either statement, since the previously revised statement of including owners and carriers, obviously includes individuals as part of the plural rubric. Other than that, the exclamatory statement that includes all and any civil liberties pertaining to guns is a tremendous overreach, as is the current statement that literally says guns have rights and civil liberties. To my understanding, it is the people who use or carry guns that the NRA advocates for, no one else. As such, the opening statement needs to be revised to be clear about the advocacy of the NRA. Regards, Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I posted this here to articulate why I made the earlier changes that were then undone by an editor (with no accompanying intelligent explanation). In lieu of that, and to avoid confrontation, I have added the above arguments. If the explanation is not sufficient please contact me before you erase my changes, and I will elucidate it further. It should be simple - guns do not have 'rights and civil liberties'; people do. However, the current opening sentence states that guns have rights and civil liberties. That is not true. Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph should be changed, in my opinion. In the U.S., civil liberties includes many rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to vote, and so on.  The NRA advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, but not for all the other civil liberties, so the lead as written could confuse or mislead our readers.  Another thing: The NRA doesn't just advocate for gun rights.  It also promotes various shooting sports (such as different kinds of target shooting) and teaches firearm safety.  That should also be mentioned in the lead paragraph, even though the gun rights thing gets a lot more press coverage. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A literal reading of that line does suggest rights for guns & not owners; AFAIK, no sensible person is reading it that way. Nevertheless, clarity is preferable. As for NRA protecting civil rights more broadly, that's been argued & argued, & AFAIK, (something like) consensus was reached; this looks like yet another attempt to a) re-open the debate & b) win it. When do you propose an end to that? When the page calls NRA fascists & guns demonic tools of Satan?  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  05:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, I missed some of the previous arguing, but I think a lot of it was about whether or not the NRA is a civil rights organization. That's not what I'm talking about.  The lead paragraph makes it sound like the NRA advocates for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. -- but they don't, they advocate for the right to keep and bear arms.  Some people say that defending the Second Amendment has the effect of enhancing all civil liberties, but any such effect would be indirect -- the NRA is not engaged in directly advocating for those other civil liberties.  So "advocates for gun rights and civil liberties" is misleading, or confusing.  And redundant, because gun rights *are* a civil liberty.  I would propose something along the lines of "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights, and promotes shooting sports and firearms safety." — Mudwater (Talk) 12:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this recent "and civil liberties" edit -- inserted without explanation - is (1) not supported by the cited sources (which describe the NRA as a gun rights group, plainly) and (2) is misleading (it indicates that the NRA is involved in broader civil liberties debates, which is not the case). Neutralitytalk 05:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording so that it is clear it advocates for gun rights as a civil liberty. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , what specific source supports this text? Thanks, Neutralitytalk 05:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The US Bill of Rights, Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States, just as the ACLU protects civil liberties. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's original research (and in any case does not address the claim made in text, which is about the NRA specifically, and not about the right to keep and bear arms). Do you have a specific source that states that the NRA regards itself as a civil liberties organization, or that the NRA regards gun rights as a civil liberty? Neutralitytalk 05:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sky is blueSaturnalia0 (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So again, no reliable sources. Let's review.
 * Not supported by any of the references actually cited.
 * Recently added content challenged on this talk page by multiple editors.
 * Misleadingly implies that the organization is involved in broader issues (like free speech, free press, etc.) - something contradicted by the body of the article, which notes that the NRA is a single-issue organization.
 * Even if cited, is redundant (lead section already notes that NRA claims to be oldest civil rights organization).
 * Neutralitytalk 15:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

you're being slightly dishonest. You're the only one who commented on my wording. The comments above are on different wording. And indeed, the reason the nra fights for gun rights is because it's a civil liberty. That should be in the first sentence.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? We already mention that the NRA claims to be the U.S.'s oldest civil rights organization, in the lead section. And again, the sources describe the NRA as a gun rights group 99% of the time. We lack sources showing that is routinely described by others as a "civil liberties group" - nor do we even have sources showing that the NRA bills itself as a "civil liberties" group. Neutralitytalk 22:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would, by the way, be perfectly fine with something cited to this in the appropriate section (not the lead section), if desired: "The NRA considers its cause particularly patriotic because it sees itself as a defender of constitutional rights." Jessamyn Conrad, What You Should Know about Politics &mdash; But Don't: A Nonpartisan Guide to the Issues that Matter (Skyhorse Publishing, 2012: 2nd edition), p. 227 (link).  Something like this in the body would be appropriate weight, well-cited, etc., unlike the language shoehorned in earlier. Neutralitytalk 22:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * you're missing my point. This has nothing to do with the nra or their claim. This is merely saying that gun rights in the USA is a civil liberty.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it has "nothing to do with the NRA," why the heck should it be in the article on the NRA?? Neutralitytalk 23:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's about gun rights, which is about the NRA. Gun rights in the US is a civil liberty, so it's not like an organization who might advocate for something merely because they feel it's a good idea, or they want to improve something. Advocating for this, is because it is a civil liberty, which is why the ACLU sometimes agrees with the NRA because it is a civil liberty. So it's perfectly reasonable to say the NRA advocates for gun rights as a civil liberty, as opposed to the AAA who advocates for motorists, which is not necessarily a civil liberty. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating this, but bring forth no reliable sources that actually discuss the NRA in these terms. Neutralitytalk 23:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * [] "The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying arm of the NRA. Established in 1975, ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Sir Joseph (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Does not describe the group as a "civil liberties group," and in any case is self-sourced, so could not be used for claim in wikivoice. Neutralitytalk 00:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As the civil liberty article points out, in the US, civil right and civil liberty are used interchangeably. (And here is an article from the ACLU where they were against a gun control measure, the last paragraph calls it a civil right, []) Sir Joseph (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) If they are interchangeable, then the text is redundant, since the NRA's claim to be a civil rights group is already in the lead. (2) The ACLU blog post doesn't mention the NRA at all (WP:SYNTH). (3) Even if the ACLU blog post did make such a statement, this source is not a reliable one for such a claim in Wikipedia's own voice. Neutralitytalk 00:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what you're not getting. Protecting gun rights in the USA is because gun rights is a civil liberty. It has nothing to do with the NRA or the ACLU. That the NRA describes itself as one thing is irrelevant. The NRA (and many other organizations) protect gun rights AS A CIVIL LIBERTY. And the ACLU is most definitely a RS. To me it just seems you have a bias and you are unwilling to accept any edit to the contrary. It is as pointed out above, a WP:BLUE issue. Gun rights is a civil liberty issue and should be the main sentence. That the NRA calls itself the oldest group is fine as well, but it doesn't take away that in the US gun groups are protective of gun rights as a civil liberty. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is just your ipse dixit. The bottom line is that this text fails the initial threshold requirement of having a reliable source that directly supports the assertion. (And, even if there was, this would be redundant and undue weight). Neutralitytalk 01:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"and civil liberties" does not belong there unless it can be sourced. I'm only aware of the organization being described as a "gun rights" advocacy group. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Does not belong -- "...as a civil liberty" (diff) does not belong in the opening sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Gun ownership in the US is a civil liberty. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree; it does not belong in the lead and is dubious at best. Especially with no real support. ContentEditman (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Philando Castile undue weight
I've tagged this section in the article as having undue weight. First, I see this as a WP:RECENT issue. Second, as a singular incident what does this tell us about the NRA as a whole. We have to keep this in context of an organization that is around 150 years old. The section in the article is a basic he said she said that seems to have no real value in understanding the organization and the incident doesn't have context outside of just this one event. As is I think the paragraph should be removed. However, if the content fits into other sections about the NRA then it should be integrated into those sections rather than being a stand alone criticism paragraph. It doesn't seem like it should have the same weight as some of the other topics in that section. It's worth noting that criticism/controversy sections in general are discouraged as they are ripe for becoming dumping grounds for what ever random, negative article shows up. Springee (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the recent edits have addressed the WIEGHT concerns. They did add context but this is a singular incident in the 150 year history of the organization.  Controversies like the NRA's handling of mass shootings are relevant because the issue comes up more than once.  This is a singular incident and it isn't clear how this reflects on the broader history or outlook of the organization.  WP:RECENT applies here.  If there is a section on racism or evidence of organizational racism then this material would support that boarder topic.  As is the section should be removed.  Springee (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's RECENT and WEIGHT. This was a very unfortunate incident, but criticism of the NRA over it was a brief flash in the news pan. It doesn't warrant inclusion. Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree this should be changed to selective support of gun owners due to race or something similar and use the Castile as just one of many examples. I searched and there seems to be quite a few articles about selective protection of gun owners by the NRA when you look at the race of the gun owner. I would support you editing it to include the other pieces and change the title to it as well. https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist or http://www.mtv.com/news/2900230/the-really-really-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/ are just a couple with a simple search. ContentEditman (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of the links you provide support what you claim. Those are about NRA support for legislation, which the authors imply was racially motivated, not about the NRA selectively supporting gun owners due to race. It's a conflation. There's no evidence that the NRA supports white gun owners but not African American gun owners - only speculation. Anastrophe (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that those articles and the Castile incident are not well correlated. I propose giving it 30 days to either be better integrated or removed.  As is, I don't see how to better integrate the text since it doesn't seem to be part of a larger pattern.  Springee (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't even merit mention. A few outlets that have a history of adversarial behavior towards the NRA decided to try to stir up controversy. The NRA doesn't come out in support of every person, so this becomes a case of singling out one person and making the unsubstantiated claim that it was due to race. Since it makes (or implies) a controversial claim that is under dispute, I have removed the section until consensus is achieved. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is undue weight. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed the section from being about Castile into a race double-standard section. The NRA has indisputably come under criticism for a perceived lack of advocacy for black gun owners and these criticisms have been reported in reliable sources. There are now ten reliable sources in a fairly brief sub-section on the topic, so there shouldn't any problems in terms of WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be "indisputable" the there was some criticism but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the short-lived talking points by anti-NRA outlets is really relevant enough for inclusion. Stacking up a bunch of sources doesn't really solve weight. Just declaring it to be solved isn't going to fly. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that AP, WaPo, CNN, Politico etc. are not RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What in that response would make you draw a conclusion that absurd? Or are you unfamiliar with the concept that just appearing in a RS doesn't grant something an express ticket to inclusion? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You were rambling about "short-lived talking points by anti-NRA outlets". That's why I asked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No my friend, there was no "rambling" in that 4 sentence response. Did I mention the AP, WaPo, CNN etc? Did I even use the word "reliable" or the shortcut "RS"? No? So was that was just some stuff you fabricated to be sarcastic? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your sources, including HuffPo is not RS, and you are cherry picking to suit your agenda. Why not quote Colin Noir? You violated DS and BRD by reinserting this content while a discussion is ongoing. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* So the argument is really going to be that AP, WaPo, CNN, Politico etc. are not RS? The HuffPo source is an op-ed by a Professor of History and the text that uses this source attributes it to that professor (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I have no idea who Colin Nair is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to know who he is, read your own sources. He's prominently mentioned in one. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention and NOT fabricate arguments that aren't being made. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change
I believe that this text meets Springee's concerns, as well as concerns over WP:DUE, and should therefore be included:

"The NRA has come under criticism for the appearance that the organization only defends gun rights for non-black Americans. Critics note that the NRA, which is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated, has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in cases involving gun rights and black gun owners." "The NRA came under criticism from some of its own members and other gun rights advocates in June 2017 for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer at a traffic stop. 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. 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. Some critics attributed the NRA's silence to the fact that Castile was black. 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, Dana Loesch, who stated 'He was also in possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) and a firearm simultaneously, which is illegal.'" "According to Robert Slayton, Professor of History at Chapman University, there is a precedence to NRA silence on gun-rights cases involving African-Americans. 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. 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.' Critics of the NRA also noted the organization's lack of a response and failure to offer condolences after Alton Sterling was killed by police while legally carrying a firearm."

Comments? (Can someone add a reference list or hide the references below? Thanks, I don't know how to do it.) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (Edit: More sources: Politico, McClathchy, WNYC, The Guardian, Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This brings the number of reliable sources up to 17. There are more sources available by the way.) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that most of these sources center around 1 event (yes, others are mentioned in some articles, but it's mainly about Castile)) and are mostly within a 30-45 day period? In other words, this isn't something that got continuing coverage. If you removed Castile from this entry, there'd be next to nothing. The sources you used are mostly left-leaning and often adversarial to the NRA. Of course they want to create dissention. They tried, it didn't last, the media moved on.....and you want Wikipedia to dwell there. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not just that, but even if you want to include this, it is one sided without any opposing viewpoint. But I do agree with you that a one time event is not worthy of inclusion in the article. I do imagine (I haven't checked) that this can be mentioned in the Castille article Sir Joseph (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Castile article only gives the NRA responses and doesn't make insinuations about racism. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any text you want to add, suggest it. The text already includes NRA's stated reason for staying silent on Castille.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Half are from the summer of 2016. The other half is from 2017, with the most recent source being from Oct 2017. (2) The sources are not left-leaning and adversarial to the NRA. These are high-quality RS. (3) These are eleven RS dispersed over a period of 15 months, with the most recent one in Oct 2017. The criteria that's set for inclusion is ludicrously high (I'd be astonished if this is a criteria that you and Sir Joseph apply in a principled manner). It's one of the most comprehensively sourced sub-sections in the article despite the fact that the sub-section is tersely worded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You confuse high quality and left-leaning. I don't dispute the reliable source status of the NY Times, WaPo or CNN. But they have a demonstrated left lean. Just like the WSJ (a high quality source) has a right lean. US News & World Report used to be a high quality source when it was primarily a print magazine. Lately, it's not. Still, you did perform a sleight of hand (unintentional, I'm sure). 3 of your 2017 sources are all connected. 2 are WaPo, published on the same day. The Chicago Times is actually a WaPo op-ed piece, published within 2 days of the other two. So out of 6 sources that are 2017 (the others are Al Jazeera, Reason and the Examiner), half are from the same left-leaning source within 2 days. The opther 5 are 2016, mostly within a 30-45 day period. The HuffPo source (from 2016) is an op-ed from a history professor in a small college. BTW, it's comical that you say you don't know who Colion Noir is when he's prominently featured in the CNN source you cite. Makes me wonder if you read the sources or just find what supports your POV? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The HuffPo is an opinion piece and most certainly not RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The HuffPo piece is just one of many references and was also written by a professor of History. Calling out just a single reference and ignoring the author is disingenuous. ContentEditman (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the Huffington Post is one, the CNN "#Get Political" is one, the Chicago Tribune is one, and the Reason is one. So about a quarter of the sources are opinion or commentary. The author is secondary if the source is a blog post with no editorial oversight. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please specify what your criteria for inclusion are? So far, the bar just keeps getting raised and raised. I get the impression that there is literally nothing that could get you to approve the inclusion of this material. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my bar for inclusion, it's Wikipedia's. HuffPo may be RS, but not an opinion piece. In general opinion pieces are not RS for content. This is all beside the fact that the entire subject does not belong on this page. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, besides an attributed HuffPo op-ed by a professor of history (which is totally fine per WP:NEWSORG: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact"), what exactly can be done to get you to approve some version of the text? How many reliable sources need to be cited? What sentences need to be tweaked? What text needs to be added? This looks like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part where I wrote that even if you have RS this topic is not for this article? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the suggested change. First, Snooganssnoogans is making a good faith effort to fix the section so I don't want to discredit that effort.  I think this could be broken into two sections/subsections IF sufficient sources can be found.  First, we have an issue of "is the NRA racist"?  A number of sources have made that claim. However, I think many suffer from recentism.  It's no secret that there are many sources that want to tar the NRA so accusations of racism after a non-justified police shooting make for a great anti-NRA message.  However, we should set some Google filters here and ask, how many articles can we find from before the Castile shooting?  That would help us decide if this is a recentism issue or something that has been reported for a long time.
 * The other potential topic is the NRA's relationship with police departments. After the Castile shooting I recall at least a few sources suggesting it wasn't race but a fear of a police backlash that kept the NRA quiet.  Consider this WP article [].  It doesn't talk about racism but instead talks about how the NRA used to oppose many police practices but now seems to side with the police and keep quite in cases of police misconduct.  Personally I think that would be a far better topic for this section vs the weak accusations of racism at a time when "racism" is tossed out as quickly as a claim of bad breath or bad hair.  I would note that my very brief search for pre-2016 articles related to this second topic also turned up very little.  I would also note that the WP article undermines the whole racist NRA-Castile angle.  It notes a large number of cases where the NRA was quite after police shot legal gun owners who weren't breaking the law.  Rather than the issue being the NRA silent on police misconduct directed at black gun owners it seems the issue is the NRA silent on ALL issues of police misconduct for fear of backlash at the local PD level.  Springee (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Are we seriously at a point now where the text supported by 17 reliable sources is not OK but we are totally OK with creating a whole new subsection about something entirely different on the basis of one WaPo op-ed? *Sigh* I'm taking this for a RfC. I see absolutely no way to resolve this with you guys: just look at how the goalposts have shifted throughout this discussion. And you have all crapped on the reliable sources as if they are not RS, which seriously undermines your credibility. (2) If you want to create a subsection about criticism that the NRA is too pro-police, do that! I would never in a million years remove that text if it's reliably sourced. What makes zero sense is for you, me or any other editor to decide which criticisms are legit and which are not, and to remove or keep RS content on that basis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think people agree that we have 17 RSs on the subject. You have 11 references and I don't agree that all of them really support the claim being made.  Take the first one [], it shows examples of the NRA not protesting shootings of black gun owners by police but doesn't actually show that the NRA does protest when a white gun owner is shot in a similar circumstance.  After that most of the article is typical anti-NRA stuff but not really about the subject at hand.  The HuffPo opinion article is largely the same.  Aljazeera is more about the issues with laws that the NRA wasn't part of.  Politico, and first WP articles don't support the claim that this is widespread.  The Chicago Tribune and the second WP articles don't even mention the word "race" so they don't support the argument you are trying to make.  The Reason article actually supports the WP article I linked above.  It supports the idea that the NRA is silent because they don't want to antagonize local law enforcement.  The WashExmr features a clip from The Daily Show (!) and is hardly an insightful article.  It doesn't support the motivated by racism angle.  Finally, the NYT is talking about police shootings of blacks but doesn't mention the NRA.  So beyond the issue of recentism you really don't have a compelling set of articles to support the content you are trying to add.  Remember that when you are talking about a ~150 year old organization we shouldn't include flash in the pan content.  Springee (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why this talk is futile. What a bald-faced set of lies and misleading gibberish (with the exception of the WashExmr which someone else added). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, launch the RFC you talked about or drop the WP:Stick. The aspirations are getting disruptive. PackMecEng (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * {ping|Snooganssnoogans}, I'm OK if you don't agree with me but accusing me of lying is violation of WP:CIVIL. If you disagree show us where I made a mistake in my summary of the articles.  Springee (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT does mention the NRA. The HuffPo op-ed by the history prof is literally titled "The NRA is Racist" and about the NRA's silence in the Castile case and other cases, yet it's "not really about the subject at hand"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From the reference list above, NYT article, [], you are correct, I searched for "NRA", not "N.R.A." The last paragraph mentioned the NRA, a throw away quote by the widow.  Sorry, that is quoting the opinion of the widow, not the view if the NYT.    The HuffPo is an op-ed and as I said before, the intro claims racism but as I said before, they aren't showing that this is actually racism vs pro-police silence.  Again, the HuffPo is an opinion article from a source that is very anti-gun and works to appeal to emotion vs reason.  I do think the NRA being reluctant to criticize law enforcement should be added to the article and there is a lot more information that we could use to support such a claim.  Springee (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

DS Alert
 Scr ★ pIron IV 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC) (The above DS alert was moved from my talk page.) One passer by (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a required alert given to editors working in areas covered by discretionary sanctions. It is not meant to imply you did anything wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks PacMecEng and ScrapIronIV. I was wondering about that.  If needed, naturally I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone might have about my edits to this article here on this talk page. No doubt, the topics of gun legislation and the NRA are likely to draw out some lively discussions here.  One passer by (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah just one of those things, everyone gets one. If there was an issue with your edits no doubt someone would let you know. PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to NAD & NAACP
I removed this statement from the article:
 * The National Association of the Deaf, founded in 1880, and the NAACP, founded in 1909, have made similar claims.

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. K.e.coffman (talk) 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. ContentEditman (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The NAD is probably not the best people to cite here, especially a blog post by "admin". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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

"The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. 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.    The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias. 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.""The NRA came under criticism from some of its own members and other gun rights advocates in June 2017 for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer at a traffic stop. 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. 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. Some critics attributed the NRA's silence to the fact that Castile was black. 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, Dana Loesch, who stated 'He was also in possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) and a firearm simultaneously, which is illegal.'""Adam Winkler, 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. Winkler added that it was under this legislation that Martin Luther King Jr. had an application for a concealed carry license turned down in 1956 when he applied for one after his house was firebombed. 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. According to Robert Slayton, Professor of History at Chapman University, there is a precedence to NRA silence on gun-rights cases involving African-Americans. 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. 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.' Critics of the NRA also noted the organization's lack of a response and failure to offer condolences after Alton Sterling was killed by police while legally carrying a firearm."

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.  Springee (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)+


 * 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. ContentEditman (talk) 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.    Springee (talk) 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. ContentEditman (talk) 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 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.  Springee (talk) 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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.  Springee (talk) 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 WP:OR for Wikipedia 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 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.  Springee (talk) 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 WP:UNDUE space would drown out the more substantial criticism this organization has faced throughout the years.Icewhiz (talk) 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. Sir Joseph (talk) 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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.  Springee (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 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.  Springee (talk) 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. --RAF910 (talk) 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? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 WP:UNDUE. 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 |Nblund ]]talk 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; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&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. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we ought to remove the Loesch quotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.   TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.)  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  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.--Limpscash (talk) 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"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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." - DN (talk) 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. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 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 WP:RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 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 WP:RS? What exactly is your policy-based reason for opposing this content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Lot's of passages that could be marked with or which configure weasel in some other way, as well as excessive citations to try to "make a point". Saturnalia0 (talk) 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? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any relevant one? If so, attribute to them, forget the irrelevant ones. Saturnalia0 (talk) 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose seems undue weight and soap boxing.  Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per WP:UNDUE, and also excessively citing news sources to try and push a point using borderline weasel 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...", "[Name] added...", etc.  Adotchar &#124; reply here  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 WP:UNDUE. (3) How would you attribute statements other than through "According to...", "[Name] added...", etc.? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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 not a good argument. 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. Prinsgezinde (talk) 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.  --JBL (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support . 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. Vanamonde (talk) 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. Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in abbreviated form. The topic of the organization and race relations is certainly noteworthy, 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. Neutralitytalk 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. PackMecEng (talk) 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?

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

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 (ex)[[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 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). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  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. Springee (talk) 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.


 * Snooganssnoogans, 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:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 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.--RAF910 (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would relocate this to a more appropriate section, but there is no sub-header for "incoherent rambling." --JBL (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which oncoherent rambling would that be? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. --JBL (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that asking a clarifying question is better than guessing. So I asked. Niteshift36 (talk) 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.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family: cursive; color: #880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  11:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing
Is this WP:CANVASSING? Seems inappropriate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you even bother to read what you post? WP:Canvassing clearly states that it is appropriate.

""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 Wikipedia 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. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)"


 * AlaskanNativeRU, I can't speak for Snooganssnoogans here, but: although the original notice was appropriate, the response from Limspcash may have been inappropriate because it was not neutrally worded. 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:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 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 Poisoning the well. DN (talk) 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.". Niteshift36 (talk) 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 Wikipedia editors participating in this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not Canvassing The RFC has been rejected. Like Niteshift said "Quit grasping at straws"--RAF910 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed add seems to me to fit Limspcash's description pretty well. Should the notice have been worded more neutrally? Yes. Should the proposal fail anyhow? Yes.  TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#880085;">any time you're ready, Uhura  08:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36, I don't agree that the firearms project is most directly related to this. What about WikiProject Discrimination? Frankly the hostility of both the summary and some of the responses here don't reassure that this wasn't canvassing. Prinsgezinde (talk) 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? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements
Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following...
 * "In 2011, the organization declined an offer to discuss gun control with U.S. President Barack Obama. However, at the same time, LaPierre said that "the NRA has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data." "

I removed it once after trying to find a better place for it, but it seems like a POV "I told you so" kind of comment to me. Someone has returned it. What relevance does this have in this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ambrose Burnside a "gunsmith"?
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Rifle Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ 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 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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018
Dear Wikipedia i believe your information is false and inaccurate Sincerely Hector #freescubasteve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.174.253.76 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PackMecEng (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018
Change This: Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington DC.[10][11] Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.

To: Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington DC.[10][11] 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.

″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 TheTruthWillBeTold (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV. 331dot (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content without any substantive reason
Two users have removed a NYT description of the NRA's actions under the Trump presidency. The users, whose sole history on this page has revolved around whitewashing any and all content that reflects poorly on the NRA, removed it strictly because they disagree with the NYT's description of the NRA. There is not even the pretense of policy-based reasoning. These are the edit summaries by the users:


 * "Readers can read the article. Why are we giving almost an entire paragraph to the opinion of 2 writers just because they happen to work at the NYT? This isn't fact, it's their take on it."
 * "I tend to agree that this seems like quotes taken to smear rather than inform. The quotes are the accusation but not the evidence. This should move to talk before restoring again" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal, and their stated rational. Niteshift36 commented " Readers can read the article. Why are we giving almost an entire paragraph to the opinion of 2 writers just because they happen to work at the NYT? This isn't fact, it's their take on it." Which I agree with and Springee said "I tend to agree that this seems like quotes taken to smear rather than inform. The quotes are the accusation but not the evidence. This should move to talk before restoring again" which is also correct. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I re-removed the material. It reads as an opinion article. As such it has less WP:WEIGHT. It's also an article from yesterday which draws a question about WP:RECENT. Springee (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "News reporting I disagree with" =/= op-eds. It's a summary of the actions that the NRA has taken under the Trump presidency to align with him. There is literally nothing that's less WP:RECENT than that: it's an overview by a high-quality RS of the last 14 months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When you start off with calling my concerns "bullshit" and making allegations of "whitewashing", it makes it hard to believe you are acting in good faith. Just because it's "attributed" doesn't mean we include lengthy quotes. What you have are two non-notable reporters with an opinion. They gave it at length and you act like it's news. It's not that they reported something factual that was unfavorable to the NRA (like they bribed someone), they rendered an opinion. What was factual was left there. The opinion part from 2 people who happen to work there, attributed or not, was removed. For a lengthy quote to be included, it should be something more relevant than the opinion of 2 random reporters. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please identify the parts that are not factual in the NYT quote: "They attack the enemies he attacks, condemning the news media as “dishonest” and “failing.” They have questioned the credibility of the F.BI... And they often side with Mr. Trump in divisive cultural disputes — some of which have potent racial undercurrents — like his feuding with Black Lives Matter activists and the professional football players who knelt during the national anthem... Stories that circulate throughout right-wing news media often find their way to NRATV, which has devoted numerous segments to portraying anti-Trump demonstrators as paid shills, violent extremists and evangelists for Shariah law in the United States." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They link Trump's positions on other issues. They cherry pick different topics, all negative, to support their POV, add in some "potential undercurrents", wrap them into a nice little package and present it as news. Once again, why do these two non-notables merit such extensive coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add RS content that conflicts with this RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Find some other article that doesn't engage in a bunch of synth to make a point? And this whole thing is based on your claim that there's no substanative reason, yet 3 editors see one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've heard anyone claim that a RS engages in WP:SYNTH and should therefore be excluded... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not using the Wikipedia policy. I used it as shorthand. If you need to me explain it in longer terms, then I'm giving you more credit than you deserve. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of op-eds in the criticism section
Three op-eds published in ProPublica, the LA Times and Bloomberg were removed from the criticism section with the edit summary "We can do without the partisan blog sources". The three op-eds all made the same arguments about the NRA's alleged partisanship and substantiated the two sentences in the Wikipedia article. As is the pattern on this Wikipedia page, any and all criticism must be wiped out, even from a criticism section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I left the other source and all the text attributed to it. How is that wiping out criticism to not rely on opinion pieces WHILE still leaving all the text you wrote? PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First off.... When your first response is to tell me my concern is "bullshit", you have thrown good faith out the window. Try being civil. Second, just because someone said it doesn't mean it gets put in here. Third, just because it "has a source" doesn't give it an express ticket to inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the material was added with prose that was not neutral in tone. It also was problematic it makes accusations but doesn't actually investigate the accusations.  Earlier today some material about the NRA hobbling the ATF was added.  The prose seem to condemn the NRA for this but didn't ask why the NRA might want to do this? I added a few sentences at least starting to hint at reasons.  These are the NRA's distrust of the ATF (quite a few case examples of the ATF screwing up).  The new text was clearly condemning the NRA for refusing to let the ATF have a computer database of gun sales.  The NRA opposes this because they are against gun registries in general which a rapidly searchable database would become.  When talking about politics we should keep in mind that it cost real money to do this sort of lobbying.  The NRA's funds aren't unlimited so their opposition is likely based on some goal that fits within their larger goal of protecting 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if we don't agree with the goals, we do readers of the article no favors if we refuse to include that sort of relevant information.  Springee (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

NRA award to Ajit Pai is not WP:UNDUE
Fresh off removing a New England Journal of Medicine study for some undisclosed problems he had with the methodology, the user Springee has now removed all mention that the NRA gave an award to Ajit Pai. This follows a pattern of removing any and all information, no matter how reliably sourced, if it could in any way be seen as controversial. The NRA award was extensively covered by RS, including CNN, Politico, the Hill etc. Wikipedia pages frequently mention the awards that organizations give out and the rationales for those awards. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * MANY things are covered in the many articles about the NRA. However, you have to ask, does this have sufficient weight in context of the broader topic?  This is meant to be an encyclopedic article rather than a dumping ground for any controversies we can find.  Springee (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Claim that 74% of NRA members support universal background checks
A sourced paragraph has been added to the article which cites a perspective paper from Johns Hopkins, published in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming that 74% of NRA members support universal background checks. While this paper has been widely quoted, primarily in articles arguing for more gun control, it's results are disputed and conflict with other studies. The material added to teh NRA article lacks balance first because there was no need for the block quote, second because it doesn't mention the NRA's or other organizations' responses to the study, that is was conducted in the aftermath of Sandyhook, that the study was conducted by research group funded by Blomberg (see below) nor that it conflicts with a Pew study. I'm not opposed to inclusion but we shouldn't include a controversial study without adding other information.

The first response to the article on the NEJM link is telling and illustrates the issue with the paper. Note that anyone who is able to post a response is likely to the just the sort who could have been asked to review such a paper. Here is the response
 * Bias in Johns Hopkins Press Release


 * Unlike the press release from Bloomberg would have us believe, the survey results reveal a strong difference of opinion between gun owners, non-gun owners, and NRA members when it comes to some of the provisions of the legislation sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein.


 * For example, 77.4% of non-gun-owners supported the banning of these types of firearms compared to only 45.7% of gun-owners and a mere 14.9% of NRA members surveyed.


 * Given this level of disagreement among non-gunowners, gun-owners, and NRA members, why did the Bloomberg press release only focus on the agreement found in background checks and restrictions on criminal possession? To be objective, one should also expect to see where the disagreement was especially when such disagreement relates to pending legislation. One of the authors, Vernick, even stated, “This consensus should propel forward comprehensive legislation aimed at saving lives.”


 * What consensus? The main provisions of Senator Feinstein's bill are opposed by gun-owners and NRA members by their own survey data.


 * I can only conclude that Bloomberg has a bias against firearms and lacks objectivity.


 * Val W. Finnell, MD, MPH
 * ABPM certified

Here is the Pew article []. About half way down the article notes that 53% of NRA members who are Republicans support universal background checks. Earlier in the article it noted that 77% of NRA members are Republicans. So at best, if we assume 100% of the non-Republican NRA members, 23%, were for universal background checks, then at best 64% of members would be for UBCs. That casts the 74% number into real question. The NRA has also replied noting that their member rolls are private so it's unlikely the JH study was able to get a reliable sample of NRA members. The NRA also states why they are against UBCs. That should be included if we are going to imply the organization is out of touch with their members. For example the NRA states that it's survey shows that 92% of members oppose banning of sales between private parties. []. While WP:SYNTH limits drawing a direct comparison between some of the NRA questions and those from the JH group, they are certainly related. If we are going to indicate NRA members support X then we should include more information. Springee (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing in this text above is valid criticism except the fact that a Pew poll from 2017 had different results. NRA is not a RS. If one legitimate poll (Pew) finds a different result, then the obvious thing to do is to add that poll too. In fact, this PolitiFact overview of the NEJM study (which backs it up) contains the results of two other polls on the same subject, which we should add too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely legitimate to mention that the original paper was out of a research center funded by Blomberg and that the results were criticized in the comment section of the NEJM. It is also reasonable to add the results from the Pew and NRA poles.  Yes, we can suspect bias in the NRA pole but it represents the organization's response to the JH paper.  You will have to explain how you can use the PF article to add two more poles.  As far as I can tell all it did was show that only 169 NRA members were poled by JH to get the 74% number.  That doesn't seem like many.  The CBS pole was conducted right after Sandyhook (several articles showed that caused a short term spike in attitudes towards gun restrictions.  We have two Pew poles.  A 2013 one that shows more support and the more recent one that shows less support.  I think the more recent one should trump in this case.  I'm trying to find an article I read that talked about why these poles are often contradictory.  Sometimes people simply don't fully understand the ramifications of a concept thus the NRA's opposition wasn't because they were going against members but because they actually did understand the devils in the details.  That said, I can't locate that article so it's not going in.  Springee (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the original paper was out of a research center funded by Blomberg and that the results were criticized in the comment section of the NEJM... -- sorry, but this does not seem like a strong argument against the source, which appears to meet WP:RS criteria. If there's 3rd party criticism of the poll results, then it would be useful to look at, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a criticism published with the paper on the NEJM website. I can find articles that talk about this issue but then they are no longer about the NRA.  My reason for mentioning that isn't to put it in the article but to explain why we shouldn't just include that one source without including statements made by others about the source.  Springee (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The criticism comes from a nn individual ("Val W. Finnell, MD, MPH") commenting on a website. He says: "I can only conclude that Bloomberg has a bias against firearms and lacks objectivity" (emphasis mine). The critique needs to be stronger than that to remove an otherwise reliable source: a news source quoting an expert; a journal article, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't think we should remove the source. I think we should instead post it as well as the response to the pole and the more recent Pew pole.  We should also remove the block quote and integrate the information into the rest of the text.  Springee (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The later poll, yes, I can see that. But when it comes to the "response to the poll" -- from whom? The MD? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, who is the person writing in to object to the poll in the NEJM? What is their qualification? It cannot carry the same weight as the actual paper, which has a detailed listing of the methodology. That doesn't have to be counter weighted by "and some rando writing into the NEJM disagreed". If there are other polls, which have the same rigourous methodology can be found then we can list them alongside that one but random Fox News polls disagreeing don't count, and the idea that a newer poll somehow justifies the removal of that poll does not work. You can't change an article because a new poll comes out. Add to it, don't delete. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Excessive list of past presidents and other staff
I'm not from the USA, but the NRA are often cited in the news here in the UK - most recently for the list of companies disassociating themselves with the NRA - FedEx, Avis etc, many of which are known here in the UK. I am sure a lot of the other companies disassociating themselves with the NRA will not be reported here in the UK, as most people will not know them.

I looked at the Wikipedia page, and a couple of things come across to me

1) It is very pro-NRA.

2) There seems an excessive list of past presidents and other staff. I don't see such a list in other Wikipedia pages about companies, charities or other organizations. If they do exist, they are normally split off to a separate page. I guess this is just really a symptom of my point #1.

To take just one example, Alexander Shaler (March 19, 1827 – December 28, 1911) was apparently president of the NRA in 1876.

On my PC, the list of presidents and directors, most of whom are probably dead, is taking up more screen space than the criticism section! I don't know what the Wikipedia term is, but it seems undue weight is given to something of minor significance in the 21st century, and very little weight given to things of much greater significance.

I can see the point of listing the people that started up the NRA, and current senior staff, but the huge list seems a bit excessive to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.72.170 (talk • contribs)


 * I removed the non-notable presidents for now; preserving here by providing this link diff. I'd be open to pruning this area further as excessive intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing WRT the list of presidents and directors. Perhaps it can be spun off into a list. Some of the material in the article is laudatory, which is not surprising given that it's sourced to organization itself. I've trimmed some of this material and still more could probably be trimmed.- MrX 🖋 19:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the list of personnel to the bottom of the page for now diff. I think a WP:SPINOUT is a good idea for the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * rigtoy or wrongly, nearly all past presidents and all listed directors have articles, so they are notable. The last one with an artocle has some pretty "interesting" ideas that were not covered until I added a section to his page. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed there's already a list of NRA presidents at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Presidents_of_the_National_Rifle_Association If someone can remove the big list, and link to that page instead, it would make more sense.

I would have thought the list of previous directors to be of marginal interest, and does not warrant the amount of space it takes up in the article. But as a non-American, maybe I have a different view to the target audience. Drkirkby (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Trump photo
This should probably be discussed, or not ;) --Malerooster (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably a good call to remove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be discussed. Why was it removed? Is it not notable that the president of the United States is perhaps the most famous and significant member of the NRA? --GHcool (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, isn't that what we are doing now? It was removed per BRD. Yes. --Malerooster (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The photo is unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can somebody explain why the photo is not worthy of the article? Methinks that the photo was removed not per BRD, but per what BRD is not. --GHcool (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun safety training
Interesting ref for both the museums and their gun safety training Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be an ironic inclusion :D Springee (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is ironic!- MrX 🖋 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FBI investigation
How to deal with the widely reported FBI investigation of how russian money may have been funnelled thru the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign? Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything about this. Could you provide some sources?- MrX 🖋 23:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I would exclude for now. This is a WP:RECENT issue and currently the accusations are vague.  If nothing becomes of this will people care in 5 years?  Springee (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

,, breaking election laws and cooperating in Russian interfearance... would matter5 years from now. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is speculation. Currently this isn't proven so we shouldn't include it.  Your first link is of unknown reliability.  Your second link doesn't work.  The third link gets to the point I'm making.  Currently the FBI is looking into this.  We don't know if the NRA did anything wrong or really anything at all.  Reading the CNBC article it appears that what it happening is the FBI is looking at basically all dark money sources.  Since the NRA is one it would make sense they would be investigated presumably along with others.  Note that a Democrat from Oregon is pushing the investigation.  What if in the end the FBI finds that the NRA acted as an unwilling conduit and broke no laws in the process?  Would we still keep this information in?  Until we have ANY solid evidence of wrong doing on the part of the NRA this is a VERY questionable addition and should be removed.  Springee (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First link is The McClatchy Company - "a publicly traded American publishing company based in Sacramento, California. It operates 29 daily newspapers in 14 states and has an average weekday circulation of 1.6 million and Sunday circulation of 2.4 million" which makes them quite reliable. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Newsweek story


 * A push for a National Election Commission investigation and a conirmed Senate investigation Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I still couldn't get your link to work. I've found a few others on Newsweek but they are older (first week of Feb or older).  Based on what you said in the sentence it sounds like we still have nothing that says the NRA did anything wrong.   Springee (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess Newsweek can't even keep their servers running, but this is rather interesting:
 * Other sources are covering it too: . There should at least be a brief mention in the article of the investigations. It doesn't really matter if the NRA broke the law or not. They are being investigated at the highest levels of government.- MrX 🖋 04:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just being investigated by the FBI doesn't mean it's the "highest levels of the government". When someoen makes a complaint, they investigate. When there are actual charges, it's more relevant. Right now, it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just being investigated by the FBI doesn't mean it's the "highest levels of the government". When someoen makes a complaint, they investigate. When there are actual charges, it's more relevant. Right now, it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Newsweek links will not work. I habe to strip out the Google preface like always. Anyway a search for "Russia NRA FBI" or similar will bring up plenty of mainstream media coverage. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the quote above. That was the part I was reading previously.  Note that it doesn't say the NRA has done anything wrong.  They are investigating.  Until they actually find something wrong (or clear/compelling evidence) this is WP:RECENT.  We just don't know if in a few years it will be found the NRA was actively complicit or did nothing wrong. Springee (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We put recent material in Wikipedia all the time about airplane crashes, football games, YouTube stars, elections, and mass shootings. This material is obviously relevant, and an investigation of this magnitude is obviously significant. No one can know if it will be significant from the perspective of the future. If not, it can removed then. I think if we can have an entire poorly-sourced paragraph about the NRA museum or mind-numbing minutiae about their nominating committee, we can certainly include a couple of sentences about two concurrent investigations of international scope, that includes a complaint to the FEC.- MrX 🖋 04:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Airplane crashes are historical fact the moment they are complete. This is a preliminary investigation associated with a highly politicized issue that might amount to nothing.  It should wait until their is actually substance (or not). Springee (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We're talking about an ALLEGATION that, thus far, hasn't been substantiated by any government agency or court. If and when it is substantiated, this discussion becomes much different. However, since all the allegations seem to involve living people, we may be drifting into BLP issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What matters is the extent of coverage in sources, not what stage the investigation is in. I'm OK with waiting to see if more sources cover this before adding adding some content, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 🖋 17:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stage absolutely matters. Public figures and groups are routinely investigated for one thing or another. We don't list every time it happens. We list it when there is something substantial to it. There are certain types of charges that are even required to be investigated, even if there's no direct evidence. Right now, there's an allegation. If there are actual charges, the conversation could change. If there's an actual conviction, the conversation could change. Right now, there's nothing substantiated. Inclusion now is actually much more UNDUE than anything else. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The CNBC piece is an opinion piece written by an activist group. The McClatchy source says that there's supposed to be an investigation, but the NRA says they haven't been asked anything. The newsweek source says that McClatchy reported it and that some other group plans to make a complaint and admists "No public evidence that the NRA took Russian money has emerged". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are statements by the NRA WP:RS for views/opinions of the NRA
I've started a WP:RSN discussion on the topic here [] Springee (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dec 2012 press conference
The sources discussed NRA's press conference in the wake of Sandy Hook shooting. I've removed NRA's self-citations and revised per WaPo & USA Today sources; please see diff. The paragraph is not really about legislation; so I'm not sure what it's doing there, but at least it's now conforming with the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved the content into Sandy Hook section, as it was not about the legislation, but about the press conference: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

cut ties
Businesses cutting ties is becoming a thing Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. I'm curious if it will have any momentum.- MrX 🖋 13:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence about that to the article yesterday, here and here. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN reported Delta and another airline cut ties this AM. Calling it a trend. Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * NRA put up a statement about loosing partnerships and discounts. first thing you see going to their website. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ICYMI, there is now a dedicated article: 2018 NRA boycott.--DarTar (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I merged the affiliate section with the material that was previously added in the mass shooting section. I split the affiliate material off from the LV shooting, added the link to the child article, cut the names of companies (all in the child article in great detail) and cleaned up some of the language for weasel words.  Springee (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The ATF and Senate confirmations
I have questions about this edit.


 * The NRA's distrust of the ATF and a general shift away from support of gun control originated in 1971 when Ken Ballew was shot and paralyzed during an clumsy ATF raid.

I'm not sure if this is the correct paraphrasing of the source, which includes:
 * But it was a 1971 raid in Silver Spring, Md., by the Treasury Department's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division that galvanized the nascent gun-rights movement. Police broke through the door of Kenyon Ballew, suspecting he had a stash of illegal guns and grenades. Ballew brandished an 1847 Colt revolver, and a police bullet to the head left him disabled for life. "It took hold in the firearms community," said Jeff Knox, head of the Arizona-based Firearms Coalition, whose late father, Neal Knox, was instrumental in turning the NRA into a sharp-edged political organization. "There was a sense of outrage, 'It could have been you or me.' "


 * A cascade of horror stories followed, many involving ATF agents "clad in ninja blacks" bursting through doors of law-abiding gun owners, often for nothing more than possessing weapons in technical violation of gun laws. ATF officials dismissed these cases as aberrations and said the bureau had taken corrective action against the few instances of excess. But after a militant wing took over the NRA in the "Cincinnati revolt" at the group's 1977 convention, Neal Knox emerged as the group's chief lobbyist and "declared war" on ATF.

Nothing about "distrust", etc, but instead a discussion of a messaging campaign of "horror stories" that followed. Likewise, I have concerns about this addition:
 * This opposition is based on the NRA's view that such a searchable system would create a defacto national firearms database which is both illegal under the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act and, when combined with universal background checks would result in a national gun registry.

This is cited in part to NRA, which in this case is WP:BIASED source as to how NRA is justifying its opposition to the searchable system. Why is the NRA source needed here? Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm totally happy with the prose but the text does two things. First, it makes it clear that the NRA and ATF have had a rocky relationship starting when the NRA saw what the ATF was willing to do.  There are many other examples of the NRA criticizing the ATF but this one seemed to be the origin point.  Second, reason the NRA opposes electronic searches is highly relevant to the topic.  The NRA is opposed because they see it as a back door to a gun registry.  Again, it gets to the point that just presenting the case as if the NRA irrationally picks thing to spend political capital on isn't doing our readers any good.  I'm open to help with this section but I think the important point that the NRA isn't doing this just to be spiteful or something needs to remain in the section. BTW, citing to the NRA is reasonable as a source of the NRA's stated view on a subject.  Springee (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The paraphrasing does not seem to be accurate. ...when the NRA saw what the ATF was willing to do... (with the raids?) -- does not seem to be supported by the source. Re: NRA source, it's appropriate about what the NRA says about itself WP:ABOUTSELF, but not suitable for statements in Wiki-voice: "This opposition is based on the NRA's view that such a searchable system..." Etc.
 * Separately, are you sure about clumsy" is directly from the source article? I search the article for "clumsy" but did not locate this word. Perhaps I'm missing something? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was reading I think two or three sources so I might have missed which one it came from. This is the source with the word. []  Since I didn't cite that source I'll remove the word.  Springee (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This SFGate article might be a good one to use. [] Towards the end of the article it quotes an NRA lobbyist. That might be a good quote/paraphrase to include.  Springee (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored the prior version for now; the content is not ready for "prime time". It appears to be OR as worded and not supported by the source. I read the Timeline source, and here's what it has to say:
 * What proved even more consequential for United States politics was the way in which this clumsy and near-deadly raid was taken up by gun owners, the National Rifle Association, and concerned members of Congress. The furor came but a few years after the Gun Control Act of 1968, a bipartisan piece of legislation made possible by a few shared horrors, including the knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president with an NRA-promoted, mail-order gun, and that open-carry laws make for frightening displays when demonstrated by black activists.
 * The raid was especially useful to the NRA. The NRA’s magazine published a six-page article under the headline, “Gun Law Enforcers Shoot Surprised Citizen, Claim Self-Defense,” writing of a “Boy Scout leader who displayed an American flag in his window,” who was found “merely holding” a replica cap-and-ball pistol. They published certain falsehoods, like that the woman in Ballew’s apartment was his wife, and that he was bathing when the raid began (further investigation confirmed the bathtub was last used to clean Ballew’s fish tank). The paralyzed Ballew was later brought out at NRA events in his wheelchair, wearing a sign that read “Victim of the Gun Control Act.”
 * So it could be argued that NRA used the raid as a pretext, which seems consistent with both sources. I also object to using the NRA source for the statements in Wiki-voice. NRA may have its reasons, but I believe that a secondary source is preferred here, as the matter is contentious. I'm preserving this material here by providing this link, so that it could be worked on further. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree and I think the restored material is a step back because of WP:NPOV. It was not WP:OR.  I will add the SFGate material as a source as well as the reasons against the electronic record.  That shouldn't' be removed because it's critical for understanding the NRA's opposition.  I will be sure to make it clear what is NRA voice.  I agree the NRA's view shouldn't be in Wiki voice but it should be included. Springee (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you are trying to say, but the new material was generally not optimal. For example, "the NRA has lobbied against a number of Senate confirmations and some ATF regulations and reforms" (emphasis mine) -- that's wp:weasel. The current version is both factual and neutral; compare:
 * The NRA has for decades sought to limit the ability of the ATF to regulate firearms by blocking nominees and lobbying against reforms that would ease the ability of the ATF to track gun crimes.


 * NPOV does not require that the article reflect the position of the subject as expressed in the subject's own writings. Since this material is contentious, it's better to use a secondary, expert source. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a little confused by the blocking nominees part. Since that is not in the source or ability of the NRA. PackMecEng (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman, I'm open to some other way to phrase that. I don't think the current opening sentence, "The NRA has for decades sought to limit the ability of the ATF to regulate firearms by blocking nominees and lobbying against reforms that would ease the ability of the ATF to track gun crimes" is neutral.  "has for decades sought" seems more like a wp:weasel to me.  What I was attempting to capture is that the NRA has opposed some of each (confirmation and ATF regulations).  They haven't opposed all nor none.  Should we just say "some" for both?  Off the top of my head I can't think of a rule that requires us to give the NRA's side of the story but it would be a poor encyclopedia to not do it.  Furthermore, the NRA's POV is coming both from the NRA and articles on the subject.  When we are saying "the NRA claims" it is OK to go to the primary source.  Springee (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would consider NRA in this case to be a WP:BIASED, WP:PRIMARY source. The page should not really be a repository for NRA's claims, but instead, be based on secondary sources. It also appears clear from the sources that you provided that the 1971 raid was used as a pretext by NRA to go after ATF, not a cause for genuine "distrust". If the raid is brought up, the content should reflect the source(s). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the NRA is biased and a primary source. That doesn't explain why we shouldn't provide their statements on the issue.  I don't agree that this page shouldn't have the NRA's position on issues.  If we are going to include the opinions of others regarding what the NRA is doing and their motives then it's absolutely OK to include the NRA's POV so long as we are clear what the source is.  I can see what you mean about the "pretext" vs cause.  I think the sources we have say this was a cause vs pretext.  Springee (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the prior version; the content is still non-neutral, original research, and / or not supported by the sources provided: diff. Please see discussion above and the general on below. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the material related to the ATF. First, the background relationship between the ATF and NRA is sourced to WO:RS, not to the NRA. It's relevent to the discussion of the ATF. Second, the material related to the electronic records has two sources, one is The Trace, a pro-gun control news source funded by Blomberg, the other is the NRA's statements on the issue. Given the NRA is the subject of the article, the NRA's statements with respect to a topic are absolutely germane to the article. Springee (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have several editors telling you that we should avoid using the NRA as a source, which you seem to be disregarding. You have also reinserted material without obtaining consensus.- MrX 🖋 04:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We have three editors and per WP:RS the material can be used as reliable statements of the NRA's position. The material was removed based on the statement that it was sourced to primary sources.  In fact most of the material was sourced to secondary, WP:RSs.  The material stating why the NRA is against electronic records was sourced both to The Trace and to the NRA (the NRA provided additional detail).  I've removed the NRA specific link even though, per policy it should be OK. Again, I think we need more eyes here.  Springee (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the NRA is not a reliable source for self-serving statements. If the material meets WP:DUEWEIGHT, you can find third-party sources and obtain consensus for including it. Please don't insert it again until a consensus is formed.- MrX 🖋 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * reverted my edit before I could per my agreement here []. Next we need to get more eyes to figure this out.  Springee (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self-reverting. The edit is generally poor, IMO, as I commented on above. It's non-neutrally worded and does not match the sources, such as the statement about NRA's "distrust". The 1971 raid was more of a pretext, as I already mentioned.
 * I suggest coming up with a neutrally worded version on this Talk page so that we can discuss. I don't even think an edit such as the diff we are discussing would be suitable for raising at NPOVN or RSN as there are too many issues with it right now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, let's give it a go. Since I've already made my first suggestion (the removed material) can you offer either an altered text or suggestions that I can try to work around more specifically?  Also, what do you think is a neutral way to get more eyes on this subject?  Springee (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For purposes of discussion, here is the text you proposed:
 * The problem is, The Trace doesn't support this text of the NRA's position (and it's not an especially good source anyway). Here are some sources that do discuss the NRA's position:. I'm sure that are others available.- MrX 🖋 14:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is, The Trace doesn't support this text of the NRA's position (and it's not an especially good source anyway). Here are some sources that do discuss the NRA's position:. I'm sure that are others available.- MrX 🖋 14:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Here’s some useful material on the attitude of the NRA towards ATF:
 * Shorts in the Dark, by William Vizzard credentials
 * Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control by Osha Gray Davidson
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! Let me ask, do you think this material should go where I originally put it or someplace else in the article?  Springee (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better in National_Rifle_Association, since the original section is titled "ATF confirmations". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic discussion on neutrality
Yes, the page should discuss NRA's position on the issues -- as reflected by WP:RS. Is NRA a reliable source for its positions on the issues? Unlikely, as with any advocacy group. It's not limited to NRA -- any charity, corporation, sports team, state, etc is doing the same. That's why we don't just "provide their statements on the issue"; that's public relations, not an encyclopedia. If people want to find NRA's positions on the issues, as formulated by NRA itself, that's what the NRA website is for. If this page uncritically reproduces NRA's positions based on NRA sources, it's WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I would say the NRA's statements are the best source for their stated objectives, objections, etc.  Now, I would agree that sometimes what say the NRA states and what they might actually want aren't going to be the same.  However if the NRA says "law X is bad because of A B and C" then we can and should put that information in if a new source says "the NRA is against X".  This is not advocacy because we are presenting both (or more) sides to the discussion.


 * To create an example, lets say we have a statement that the NRA is against say "using law X to close the gun show loophole". We have a new source that says how bad it is that the NRA doesn't want to use X close this loophole.  Now I have say two dozen sources that say why X is a crazy bad law the we shouldn't want it... but none say "and that is why the NRA is opposed to it".  Well then we can't actually post in the article, "here is why the NRA opposes this law".  But what if we have a statement from the NRA that says we oppose X because A B and C?  Well why wouldn't we include the NRA's stated reasons for opposition.  Yes, the NRA might actually oppose it for D E and F but we can still reliably report that the NRA says they oppose it because of... Springee (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Because that may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to NRA's position -- as stated by itself, for its own benefit. Their stated reason can be inaccurate, misleading, or self-serving -- we just don't know. It's not an intellectually independent source. The encyclopedia is required to be neutral, not serve as a publishing platform for any org's public relations materials. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We can use some judgment but when the NRA is responding to an article and stating their reasons we are not being undue. This is especially true if say the article has a statement that said something like "the NRA denied ..." or "The NRA opposed...".  If the source doesn't provide the full response then we certainly can.  Being neutral means we do make sure we report the NRA's position on controversial issues accurately.  If an article says the NRA is wrong for opposing universal background checks we absolutely should put in, if available, the NRA's stated view on UBCs.  Yes, it's even better if the NRA has a statement that is a direct response to our news article but their public statements related to controversial issues for which they have received criticism should absolutely be included.  Weight comes in when we decide which topics/issues should make it to the article.  It doesn't mean we can't provide the NRA's replies/positions because article's critical to the NRA's positions don't provide their readers with a complete statement.  Springee (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I am following: If the source doesn't provide the full [NRA] response then we certainly can. (...) Yes, it's even better if the NRA has a statement that is a direct response to our news article.... Are you suggesting that, if no other source is reporting NRA's position in "full", then Wikipedia does this instead, based on NRAs statement [on its web site]? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm reading you wrong Springee, but the only time we should use the NRA's response to criticism is when it has been picked up by reliable, independent sources. On top of that, the material needs to be covered in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources, not in parity which would create WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't have special content rules the NRA.- MrX 🖋 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think in most cases we can find articles that say the NRA disagreed but often they don't provide the full statement. If that statement is available we should provide it.  KEC, yes, I am saying that we should provide a link and possibly summarize/quote a response from the NRA.  Remember that the subject wp:weight (say the % of NRA members who want universal background checks) was established by other sources.  If the NRA just brings up the subject out of the blue we generally shouldn't include it.  I see it as a NPOV issue if we let the critics talk but decide that the NRA's statement isn't a RS.  This is similar to how a biography might use quotes from a person's blog to establish that person't view on a particular subject.  If the NRA says they are against universal background checks for XYZ why wouldn't that be included, especially if we have a source that says the NRA is wrong for not wanting them.  What is our objective here?  We are trying to inform our readers.  Are our readers going to be better or worse informed with regards to this subject if we don't cover the NRA's position on contended issues?  If nothing else this would be a great case for WP:IGNORE. Springee (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for the NRA to rebut criticism. We have to stick to independent sources and write material that represents what those sources say, in proper proportion. There is no provision in WP:NPOV that gives a subject of criticism special privileges in Wikipedia, as I have already pointed out. Self-serving material published by the subject of an article is not reliable. For example, citing the NRA for a claim that "the NRA protect the rights of citizens" is self-serving. Citing the NRA for basic, uncontested facts is OK, provided that the article is not overly-dependent on such material (which it was just a few hours ago). The NRA's positions are already thoroughly covered in the article.- MrX 🖋 04:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is certainly allowed to quote primary sources. We do a disservice to publish the criticism but refuse to publish the NRA's replies.  Self serving doesn't mean the material can't be included.  We remove self serving material when it serves no encyclopedic value.  Saying that, for instance, an annual NRA membership costs $X and can be applied for at this weblink (NRA.Give$....) is self serving and should not be included.  Conversely, if the Brady Campaign gets press for saying, "The NRA is wrong about X", it's reasonably to summarize the NRA's reply.  How does it hurt the article to let the reader view the NRA's stated reason for objecting to a claim/policy/etc?  If WP:WEIGHT says the other side's statements should be included so should the replies even if they are direct.  A link to an NRA policy position on say background checks is an uncontested statement of the NRA's position on the subject and within WP:RS guidelines.  The facts, argument, etc presented their may or may not be true but unless we think the NRA's servers were hacked it is a reliable statement of the NRA's opinion.  I don't agree that the NRA's positions are already throughly covered in the article, at least not in the ATF area I recently edited. Springee (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used for basic facts. Sources published by the subject of an article can be used for facts that are not unduly self-serving per WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:DUEWEIGHT also applies. If the NRA's policy positions and opinions are noteworthy, they will be reported in independent reliable sources. The good news is, we don't have to spend a lot of time interpreting policies, because we also require consensus for material to be included, per WP:ONUS.- MrX 🖋 13:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge Political Victory Fund with this article?
The other article was created a few days ago. Seems like a content fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have a look. Separately, I've come across Friends of NRA which was mostly promo 'cruft, which I cut. It's perhaps worth redirecting to this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sentence with problematic cites removed
In the "Mass shootings" section, I just removed a sentence with incorrectly formatted cites in this edit. I see no problem with the information, I only removed it due to the bad formatting of the cites, which didn't read correctly in the refs section.

Thanks,

One passer by (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Propose new article section covering NRA position on touchstone issues
I would like to propose adding a new article section covering the NRA's position on a number of firearms issues/policies. This would be a place in the article where topics like the NRA's position on universal background check, assault weapon's bans, waiting periods, etc can be covered. I would propose that items are listed here if there are reliable sources indicating that a particular policy of the NRA is notable due to controversy or other coverage. This section would cite NRA statements/sources but only as statements attributed to the NRA. All other material including coverage of actions taken by the NRA to effect these positions would have to come from 3rd party sources. This section should include claims/sources that refute any NRA position as well as links to the controversy section as appropriate. Are there any thoughts/concerns before I start working on this? Unless someone else takes the lead I will likely create the initial content off line then upload it. Springee (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were to do this, we would need to disperse most of the subsections under criticism into this new section, which could be an overall improvement to the article structure per WP:CSECTION. Per my comments on this page and at WP:RSN, I am opposed to citing NRA statements directly from the NRA, as they tend to be unduly self-promotional, and generally not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Any content deemed noteworthy for inclusion should generally emanate from independent, third-party sources (i.e. not Guns and Ammo, not Everytown for Gun Safety, and definitely not the NRA, except in rare instances). We should not try to establish a false parity of viewpoints, as that would run afoul of WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 03:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Guns and Ammo is completely independent of the NRA. They're probably more neutral than Everytown is in many cases. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that this can incorporate related controversy material. I disagree with respect to citing NRA statements as to why the organization supports, opposes etc.  For example if the organization says it's against universal background checks for A B and C we should paraphrase and link to the NRA source.  That doesn't mean extensive quotes but the objective here is to say why in the NRA's statements and in the statements of 3rd party RSs, the NRA holds a particular policy position etc.  That 'why' needs to be supported. Springee (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of universal background checks, wouldn't there be sufficient third party sources that would explain the NRA's position? I'm having a hard time imagining what objective material would not be covered by an independent source, that would be covered by the NRA.- MrX 🖋 04:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we can find 3rd party material that supports it we should use that. However, as was discussed in the RSN thread, the statements from the NRA are the going to be the most direct statements from the NRA.  This is a particular case where we should be linking to them to get their policy statements vs the interpretations of others.  The 3rd party sources can be used to add how the NRA is or isn't supporting those positions etc.  Springee (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your favoring the comments at WP:RSN that support your own views of how things should work, while disregarding others. We really need to look at a specific example. Do you have one in mind where third-party sources cannot be found to summarize the NRA's position on an issue?- MrX 🖋 04:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have one in mind (I will post one here before in the article) but I don't think it matters. When it comes to the NRA's stated position which source would be more accurate than statements from the NRA directly?  Why wouldn't we include them?  Springee (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Boycott
For whatever it's worth MrX, re this, I have a hard time believing that we couldn't just as well get by with something like two shortish paragraphs (instead of four) and point to the main, especially leaning more heavily toward summarizing the content rather than discussing individual people, companies and quotes. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   13:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if we have a whole article dedicated to this recent development. One or two paragraphs would be more than enough. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I kept MrX's edits to the subheading title and the previous paragraphs but removed the new ones. The information that was added and much of the linked article come across as advocacy for emphasising the parts of the story where a company hasn't caved (FedEx) or where politicians have responded (GA senator and Delta).  It's disappointing to see material like that added readily but material that offers the NRAs POV on a topic is removed as self serving. Springee (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to condensing the material some, but Springee's edit went too far. The key points relevant to this article are the following:
 * All major affiliate companies cut ties, except FedEx
 * The Georgia legislature revoked tax cuts in a pending bill in response to Delta cutting ties with he NRA. The Lt. Governor's coercive tweet is also noteworthy, but that's negotiable.
 * As it reads now, there was no impact to the boycott no hint that major companies abandoned the NRA. This is misleading to our readers. Let's see if we can reach a consensus for including these two major points, without a full-blown RfC.- MrX 🖋 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Consider the concept of WP:recent. Is this going to be encyclopedic in 10 years?  The general boycott, maybe yes.  The details that FedEx said no?  What if next month they say yes?  That would make calling out the one company a great example of why we should be careful about recent and changing news.  The same for the GA material.  A statement that a number of companies acquiesced to the public pressure is sufficient. Remember, there is a primary article so this needs only to be a summary which it currently is.  Springee (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say we could cover X's bullet points in probably one additional sentence. I would recommend excluding the tweet. I would expect that the addition of a sentence would strike most as a fairly good compromise.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   15:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe it will be encyclopedic in 10 years; much more so than the NRA's trifling lawsuits in California. It is certainly encyclopedic now, and WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that we cover it to a reasonable extent in this article. We don't have a waiting period on information. ← See what I did there? - MrX 🖋 15:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

While Wikipedia tries not to be a newspaper, it seems to me that sometimes it slightly overlaps with the function of a newspaper, and this cannot be helped. Ultimately, after a year or so when the overall effects of this boycott are more clearly known, perhaps one of us will come back here and rewrite the article in a more "encyclopedic fashion." One passer by (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to condense this content to summarize the essential points, taking into account the comments here. Obviously this has grown beyond just the discount affiliates, so it needs to be updated anyway.- MrX 🖋 16:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

NRATV content in news
"'...NRA TV also has an entire group of shows dedicated to luring women into the gun life through things like handbags that can hold a concealed gun and gun-oriented arts and crafts where guns are monogrammed and sprayed fun colors. Shows like Armed and Fabulous are created, because according to one NRA executive speaking in a video clip, 'if you get the woman, you get the family.' Another show, Love at First Shot, helps acclimate women to using guns....'---current issue of Time"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)