Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article Housecleaning

Did a lot of housecleaning of the article today which it needed badly after the firestorm in the media - notably:

• removed multiple redundant critical attacks to the NRA (we don't have to say hateful things 2 or 3 times)
• streamlined the criticism section to be NPOV and less charged (no ann coulter is not notable and neither is every word bloomberg utters, and no we don't need two whole paragraphs to the Sandy hook massacre!)
• removed a lot of weasle wording (this is an encyclopedic article with a very broad audience)
• removed a bunch of dead links (quotes without RS are bogus and are removed immediately, and we have too many hateful quotes anyway)
• corrected the history of the lobbying portion to be NPOV (it was hateful the way it was written)
• cleaned up the lede somewhat
• minor typos and cleanup

Please discuss here before reverting or attempting to insert irrelevant incendiary or other POV commentary into this article. 3R rule is in effect. Please assume my good faith in just trying to make the article better and remember this is an encyclopedic article of the NRA, not a place to engage in your petty activism (pro or anti gun). Feel free to discuss improvements.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We just had a great copyeditor, Athene cunicularia, take a very heavy hand to this article after I did a pass and it's coming back to a good high quality standard. Please, please do not go and mess up the article with silly POV-laden minutiae. At this point, I'm willing to take people who are here to disrupt the article through the painful arbitration process and will enforce and report 3R violators mercilessly. Discuss improvements and of course let's make it better - reasonable editors always welcome. Activists, please go elsewhere.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent effort thus far!!! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations for further improvement

The most significant problem with the article at this point is that although various critics are listed, the substance of their criticism is unclear. For a reader to understand the criticism, the substance needs to be included, in quotations if possible. I also recommend that for each substantially different criticism, there be enough information included to know what is being criticized. If the criticism is about an NRA action or NRA statement, then there should either be a reference to it or a very brief description or reference. The point is that a reader needs to have the full debate presented, but currently much of it is missing. --Zeamays (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

open discussions in the talk, post your proposed changes for discussion and gain consensus. A lot of hard work has been done to fix the mess made here in the last month. 20 junk edits will wind up mangling the article again. POV pushing will be reverted per WP:BRD and sent to discussion. No more messes.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please post your proposed changes in Talk. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This commenter assumes bad faith on my part (see WP:ABF). Justanonymous should address the substance of my recommendations, rather than attempting to dissuade me and others from constructive edits.--Zeamays (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

constructive edits welcome, please follow policy and keep in mind the hard work of those before you. It's a very good article right now.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The article in its current state (after the cleanup by Justanonymous) is much better than it was before. However, the polls I posted earlier still need to be incorporated somewhere in the article. ROG5728 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them in, though I would be careful about adding sources from sites like Newsbusters, which is "dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias." Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no harm in adding material is it is notable, factual, from a reliable source and referenced. No article is ever perfected. --Zeamays (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

agreed ladies and gents, my warning was to the one time editor or pure activist out there intent on inserting their POV or worse hate into the article. This is a collaborative venture here. Notable, factual, RS entries that add to the article are welcomed here as always. Please understand and put in context the words of a tired editor who has been fairly frustrated at an article that went from what I thought was good to a complete mess in a month after we lost 20 innocents in Connecticut last year. Most definitely let's make it better and I trust good faith from the usual faces. I can't watch this place on my own either, we all have to do our parts to make the article even better, regardless of who the article is about.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

People who wish to push a POV one way or another are not useful to this page, and this page has seen plenty of both since the shooting. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

Granted, the events surrounding the Sandy Hook Shooting are what have prompted much of this discussion and article edits, but I have a question about the wording in the Criticism section. Currently the 1st paragraph ends with...

"Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, commentators criticized statements made by NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre during an NRA press conference."

Yes, it cited using RS, but why is the Sandy Hook incident receiving special attention? There have been other similar incidents over the history of the organization and the NRA commented then as well. Its already referred to in the next paragraph in Gov. Richie's comments, why are we as editors making this one incident so prominent?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• A valid question. Unfortunately, the answer is likely to be WP:RECENTISM. We see what is trending today and immediately presume it will always be a big deal. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Most of that stuff won't stick. We'll fully remove the junk once media attention dies down and we figure out what is truly notable.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point, I just hate to see this article start sliding down the "slippery slope" once again in light of the recent amount of effort put forth. Another issue I have with the statement is that it highlights criticism of statements made by one person associated with the NRA. How is this relevant in the context of the entire organization over its history?

and with the Wayne article on deep freeze by the local cops for a few days, we might see those pov laden people migrate here and they are hot to pov push. We're in no rush-Justanonymous (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I call Wiki Break, we can take the weekend off! Woohoo!--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Public Opinion, was Criticism section

Hi, two things. 1) I just created a section on public opinion and expanded the section on finances. It has been stated by numerous editors that surveys should be included, and I agree. However, since this is a complicated issue, it seems to me that a variety of public opinion should be included. You can't say that the majority of people approve of the NRA, while omitting that the majority of people also support background checks. It just doesn't work that way. Also, since the Sandy Hook shooting was a major event for both gun rights advocates and opponents, it seems appropriate to include the most recent surveys, even if they are related. I encourage anyone to find more surveys from the past and future and incorporate the results. 2) I also edited the Finances section. There is a lot of information about the NRA's finances out there, and I think that this section could be expanded. I have made an effort to separate the various efforts in which that the NRA to raise funds. This also means acknowledging that gun manufacturers are a major sponsor. It's true, like it or not, and deserves inclusion in a balanced article. I welcome any discussion here or suggestions to improve the edits. Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Athene, nicely done! Much broader description and a better framework for notable commentary about the NRA over time.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple problems with the new material. First of all, the new section brings up polling on American support for gun control. How does that relate to the NRA? If we're going to get into the gun control subject at all (which we really shouldn't), then we might as well mention these polls of NRA members. ROG5728 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't realize edits were taking place. I agree with Rog that the gun control subject should only be included in this article as they relate to the NRA. Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What do background checks have to do with anything? Of course you can say that the majority of Americans approve of the NRA without mentioning that a majority of people support background checks. The first statement (on the NRA) is relevant to this article, the second statement (on background checks) is not relevant to this article. It sounds like you're just trying to think up ways to offset the fact that polling paints the NRA in a positive light. We already have a criticism section to balance things out. ROG5728 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry again for the confusion. The polling I find worthy of referencing is that NRA members support background checks. If you want to include polling, you should include a wide sense of the results, not just ones that "paint the NRA in a positive light." At any rate, your accusation that I'm trying to badmouth the NRA seems to run counter to the section lede, that I wrote: "In six out of seven surveys conducted by Gallup since 1993, the majority of Americans reported holding a favorable opinion of the National Rifle Association." It is possible to try to balance an article without acting in bad faith. Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We should include relevant results, and yours are not relevant to the NRA as an organization, nor are they relevant to the public's opinion of the NRA. Again, what do background checks have to do with anything? ROG5728 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

To top it off, the source is funded by Bloomberg (the same Bloomberg who is a major gun control proponent and an avowed enemy of the NRA), so you can forget about using it in this article. ROG5728 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

1) NRA members are members of the public, right? A poll of NRA members finds that they overwhelmingly support something. This is not relevant how?

2) That's fine. Bloomberg News is an RS though, and he didn't write the article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

1) It's not relevant to the NRA as an organization, nor is it relevant to the public's opinion of the NRA. This isn't an article about the pros and cons of various gun control measures like universal background checks. We aren't going to get into that debate in this article.

2) For sake of neutrality and reliability, we're not using Bloomberg sources in this article outside of the Criticism section. ROG5728 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I'm advocating removing the statement about how "NRA members broadly oppose new gun restrictions" for the same reason; it's not really relevant (it also pretty much goes without saying). This article should stay out of the gun control debate. Just summarize the public's opinion of the NRA and leave it at that. ROG5728 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

the NRA is a membership organization --the memberss determine the officers & policies--and an independent scientific poll of those members is highly relevant to understanding the NRA. Rjensen (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Try reading the talk page discussions before reverting. The Bloomberg poll you just added back is neither "independent" nor is it "scientific" because the source is Bloomberg, head of a vocal gun control group that hates the NRA. Also, more importantly, the argument over background checks has nothing to do with this article or the section it was added to. I couldn't imagine anything more off-topic and WP:UNDUE. I'm beginning to wonder if some of you (Rjensen especially) just revert edits for the sake of reverting. ROG5728 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

False analysis and false understanding of SWikipedia rules. Bloomberg runs polls but the was NOT one of them. He had zero role--the poll was run by GfK, a German company. The report was endorsed by the New England J of Medicine, one of the top medical sources in the world. Wiki NPOV rules REQUIRE that important material be included -- regardless of the "bias" of the RS. the bias rules apply to editors who delete material they do not want readers to know about. Rjensen (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The polling you added back was funded by Bloomberg. You're also wrong about the NPOV policy. The only thing "required" of us by WP:NPOV is that criticism is balanced with praise, and vice versa. We have to include both positive and negative viewpoints, and that's why there is already a Criticism section in this article (I'm still waiting for a positive section, by the way, since you're obviously so concerned about neutrality). There is no WP policy requiring us to include your material in any article. Even if something is factual and comes from an RS, that doesn't mean it's automatically due. ROG5728 (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT - Folks, just as a point of reference, when I talk about "Bloomberg", I'm referring to "Bloomberg L.P.", the multinational media company that was founded by the individual Michael Bloomberg and NOT referring to Michael Bloomberg specifically. Bloomberg the person has a POV and agenda that he uses his media sources to promote. That same POV and agenda has also permeated its way throughout the organization. We seem to be confusing the two when we discuss sources.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That the poll was funded by Bloomberg (whichever of them) does not prima facie make it faulty. It does make its reliability dubious, which ought to exclude it until its accuracy & neutrality (was it a push poll?) can be established. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg, Washington Post, etc. as sources

ROG5728 brings up a point that I was just about to launch and that being the neutrality, efficacy, and reliability of these sources. Its no secret that they are "anti-NRA" which is a problem since their are major media outlets. The reporting of facts is one thing, but the use of those facts (by how they are presented in total or in part) to push what we call a POV makes them less than desirable.

For example, the "Bloomberg Toaster" article we are using multiple times[1] uses the phrase "over 50 firearm-related companies" which seems innocuous when you read it. But it made me wonder so I checked the list [2] (which currently has only 25 on it) and saw that one of these "firearm related companies" includes Leopold which is an optics company that has rifle scopes as part of its product line. Are they "firearm related", yes, but they are also golf and bird watching related. The list also includes one of the worlds largest outdoor (camping, hiking, hunting, target shooting, and rural enthusiast) supply companies, Cabelas.

Folks, its not like we're the engineers of the Hindenberg or Titanic and innocently using source material that we think is sound. But if you're going to use a source like Bloomberg (or others with known biases), then please make sure that you are referencing a statement of fact and not an opinion or editorialized comment. Quite frankly you're making it easier to challenge and remove almost anything that even tacitly appears POV.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can exclude a source simply because its owner has an opinion. As I said, Michael Bloomberg didn't write the article. Moreover, I have not seen anything to indicate that Bloomberg.com intentionally leans a certain way. As for Washington Post, well, I don't know what to tell you. According to WP:RS, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." I don't think Bloomberg.com falls into this category, and I certainly don't think the Washington Post does. Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We can most certainly exclude a source, if that source happens to be a well-known gun control group with a rabid hatred of the NRA. Citing such a source for "information" about the NRA is disingenuous, at best. The NRA has a lot to say about Michael Bloomberg, you know, but that doesn't mean we should use them as a source in his article. ROG5728 (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We should make sure that we use Wikipedia:Objective Sources. These days virtually any major news source can and do promote biased reporting on certain topics. We should inspect every reference and make sure it is objective wrt to the article in question.. Bloomberg reporting generally slants as anti gun while foxnews slants ProGun. If they're reporting a fact, like a train crash, both are generally reliable wp:rs but on politically charged topics they do exhibit a pronounced bias. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Membership Number

Total membership in the NRA is a subject of dispute. The stated membership in the lede has no supporting reference. Finding a viewpoint that claims neutrality on this is easy. Finding an authoritative, independent assessment that everyone can agree is neutral may be impossible. 24.5.127.137 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I just went over the 2010 Form 990 submitted by the NRA and found no mention of a number of members. We may just have to error on the side of caution and just caveat the heck out of this citation. I've added a tag on it, but we should qualify this somehow.

Maybe... "As of 2010, membership is in excess of 4 million individuals, families, and companies as reported by the organization."

A number of current sources such as this one seem to indicate the current membership number is 4.5 million. ROG5728 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, its a Fox News report with contributions by the Associated Press, works for me. But since the membership number is a "moving target" lets make sure that we clearly time stamp our references, agreed?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think the 2013 membership number should be used here since it's current. ROG5728 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, scratch that, for every article that I find that supports it, I find one to contradict or put it in question at the very least. Damn, this is frustrating. I did manage to find this [3] which says that the Alliance for Audited Media numbers can verify around 3 million of the 4.25M to 4.5M claimed via magazine subscriptions.

What if we hedge our bets, make it "3 - 4 million", and just explain that it varies? These are still HUGE numbers by any standard. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't guess or hedge or do original contortions ;-) . Didn't they just testify before congress? Sworn testimony subject to perjury, what did they claim there? That should be strongest evidence(in a juris setting)-Justanonymous (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the NRA testimony, the current membership number is 4.5 million. ROG5728 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

here is the sworn testimony, it is strongest source. More than 4.5 million.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm sold. Granted it is a WP:PRIMARY, but its based on statements made to Congress under penalty of perjury. If it couldn't be substantiated, I doubt it would have been said. Mind if I take a stab at the wording in the lede.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. So much for the wikibreak we were promised :-) -Justanonymous (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It's a sickness of mine... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, whaddya think?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably too wordy in the lede. I think we should just give the membership number and the date (as of 2013) and leave it at that. Also, using a direct link (as opposed to a citation) in the lede isn't encouraged anyway. ROG5728 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, granted the direct link was probably pushing it, but my intention was to placate both sides. Personally I'm fine with just stating "4.5 million", but in my mind leaving it that way almost encourages "factual correction" by anyone who doesn't like the number.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

we use direct primary for Sierra Club membership without any contestation. But for nra sworn testimony before the united states senate is not enough and we still must caveat heavily? Seems like a double standard. Mother Jones readily fails the OR test readily in his case. Might as well ask Sarah Brady for her estimate and include that too. Lets put 4.5 an leave it at that. Someone disagrees they can call the senate judiciary. My 2 cents. Justanonymous (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. ROG5728 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved and seconded, motion passed! Hey maybe we should use "Roberts Rules of Order" on this stuff... ;) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

According to financials at Guidestar for 2011, Membership Dues $102,640,219. Dues are $25/year with some multi-year and life. Still, it gives you a rough estimate (4.1 million) to compare year to year. imo the 4.5 million is a reasonable figure. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

New Reference!

Wow, this one's a humdinger...

Newtown Sides with NRA: Votes for Armed Guards In Schools --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and by the incredibly loose editing philosophy we seem to be following (include everything that anybody writes), this merits inclusion, it's being covered by multiple news outlets. It should go right after the part where all the commentators call Lapierre crazy for suggesting having armed guards in school.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2013

Please remove "without studying its impact on the second amendment" from this article. In its current form, the article is hyper-partisan, meant to portray all gun-control as bad, which is against Wikipedia's policy of balanced views, and is a blatant attempt to put a false spin on historical facts

Simply removing the offending term would swing the article back towards the center of the gun-control debate without actually pushing it past said center. Asmith102688 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

no that's there because the NRA truly didn't study the impacts of that law on the second amendment per tge reference. They were looking at machine gun crime. At the time the nra hadnt seen the threats to the second amendment and antigun activism, it was a different era. Agree through the article is trash right now thanks to POV pushers after the sandy hook tragedy. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This page is not proetected. You can make the edit yourself, if you get consensus on it. RudolfRed (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

Concerning a recent revert, please note that per WP:FURTHER (as well as WP:NPOV), entries in this section should ideally be books, and are to be neutral. Bloomberg is the head of a gun control group that has a strong hatred of the NRA, and as such that is not a neutral source on the NRA by any stretch of the imagination (it's also a brief web article, not a book). ROG5728 (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Add competition with Michael Bloomberg organization, many references, examples

• The NRA's Biggest Challenge March 25, 2013 Wall Street Journal
• N.R.A. Chief Says He Will Counter Bloomberg’s Gun Control Campaign March 24, 2013 New York Times
• Michael Bloomberg vs. the NRA; The next steps for New York City’s ambitious three-term mayor March 15, 2013 Maclean's
• Why Gun Makers Fear the NRA March 14, 2013 BusinessWeek
• Bloomberg Takes on the N.R.A. January 7, 2013 NYT

99.112.212.232 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"competition" ? 108.195.136.221 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

NRA Bylaws as a reference/source

Hi Folks, I recently became an NRA Endowment Member (the next notch above Life Member) and in my packet was a full copy of NRA's Bylaws. Its an interesting read and looks like it could provide some key details and information about the organization.

What are your thoughts on using it as a reference? I realize that its a primary reference and that certain rules apply, but on the other hand it is a set of Bylaws. From a practical standpoint, its a legal document and not a political statement, an editorial piece, or any kind of marketing material. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what type of a statement they are being used to source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, that applies to any source, but I'm referring to things like the number of people on its board and how its organized. Just basic "nuts and bolts" kind of information about the organization itself. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Then yes, that's the kind of thing that primary sources are good for. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. A primary source is fine for things like board of directors. With numbers, I'd just make it clear that they "state" X number of members. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dannel Malloy addition?

Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg and Governor of Connecticut Dannel Malloy have been vocal critics of NRA behavior.

108.195.136.221 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of them are vocal gun control proponents (Bloomberg is the head of a gun control group), so of course they're critics of the NRA. Sorry, that doesn't belong in the article. ROG5728 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, not appropriate to list 2 selected detractors from what would be an immense list of supporters and detractors. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

See also section

I added a link to Gun politics. All those existing international links should be moved there, or to their own country's article. Perhaps a Category or List could be created for these advocacy groups. They don't belong in this See also section. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

ref 79

Reference 79 doesn't reference an 'a rating', even though the wiki article does, and uses 79 as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.208.94 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

7-13-13 lead edit

I just did some cleanup on the lead as the explanation of the organizations structure had been changed from what was stated in the original neutral 3rd party source. The rest of the edits were for clarity and consistency. I did not remove any information, its just been rearranged. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Extreme Bias

This article is extremely biased and spends little time and focus on the fact that the NRA promotes putting guns in as many people's hands as possible. Moderation is not what Wikipedia is about, it is about getting the info correct. This article reads more like an advertisement than an objective explanation. A extreme revision of this article is needed greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.210.73 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you've been watching too much CNN. I'm sensing some "extreme bias" for sure, but it's not coming from this article. The article actually gives a straightforward, neutral description of the NRA. ROG5728 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

ROG summed up my thoughts nicely. The article is just about the organization and not all of the hype, media attention, and/or comments made by Wayne LaPierre. There is literally over a century's information to present and cite. Please don't try to make this article into something it's not. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There's so much anti-gun bias in mainstream media, it's positively fantastic. Everything is the fault of the guns & the NRA, & neither criminal actors, nor disturbed individuals, nor federal or state government policies or actions, ever play the slightest part in the outcome. An actually honest, balanced accounting, faced with that, is going to look like an NRA publicity release to a lot of people. It isn't. Looking at the last, rv'd edit, tho, I'm not sure NRA shouldn't be described as a lobbying group, nonprofit or not. It does lobby in favor of gun owners & safe gun use, & against restrictions on legal use & ownership. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:58 & 08:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Change I just accepted

I don't see my acceptance summary but it was just that it was a serious edit and, whether the edit is a keeper or not, it meets the "pre-screening" criteria / intent for the pending changes process. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It seemed worthwhile to me. I made some minor copy and wording changes to make the sentence flow a bit better. Do we have a reference for it specifically? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing the third point on the To do list

Why have my attempts to address the to-do list being impeded? I did not put this on the to-do list, I am simply trying to fix a problem which has previously been identified. Can we please come to some sort of consensus on how to address the NPOV status of this article, which is clearly in dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.215.121 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is neutral. The only person disputing the neutrality of the article is you (and your sock IPs). You've displayed your bias (and ignorance of the subject) very clearly here on the talk page, so it's a wonder anyone is even responding to you anymore. ROG5728 (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are obviously not founded in reality as, if you actually look back at several of section preceding this one on this talk page, you will find that I am most certainly not the only one that is or has ever questioned the NPOV status of this page. Personal attacks will not get you far. Am I not allowed to voice my displeasure about something? or this not America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see my 31 October edit for how I wish to see the first paragraph phrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.219.117 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

IP(s) Edit warring 12 times the same edit

I think that IP's 132.194...and 74.135....are wp:duck the same person. They have put in the same edit 12 times in the last few days. I don't even see their point.....they seem to be trying to delete certain activities and goals. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the two newest IPs, and yes they are both from the same area of Colorado. This user has already earned one block for violating 3RR on an older IP, and then another block for evading the first block. ROG5728 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be home and school. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to correct a clear bias that is present on this article. Gun owners and proponents of gun violence have a monopoly on the content of this article and many others concerning guns and violence on Wikipedia. I am living a breathing proof that not everyone in Colorado like gun violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• "proponents of gun violence"? No, that doesn't sound biased at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not biased. It is fact. Saying that the NRA is a proponent of "safety" is bias. Guns are inherently dangerous. That's like saying "nuke safety" or "machete safety". The safest gun is a broken gun. If you are in favor of Guns, you are by extension in favor and complicit in the violence committed using guns. Guns are tools used for impaling something or someone with a bullet. Form follows function.

"Gun owners and proponents of gun violence" I'm neither, & I'm offended. I happen to think gun banners are wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Gun violence is offensive. Do you know how many people were shot today?

♠"Guns are inherently dangerous" Guns are inherently paperweights. Show me one case, just one, where a gun climbed down off a wall, ran out in the street, & shot somebody by itself. And, considering the number of guns in the U.S., the better question is, if you're right, why the country hasn't been depopulated yet. How many people didn't get shot by legal guns today? How many robberies were stopped, or prevented? How many muggings? How many houses didn't get broken into because there was a gun in the house, & the crook didn't want to risk getting shot?

♠"Gun violence is offensive." Yes, it is. How many people got shot today because criminals have guns, & law-abiding citizens don't? How many got shot today because the government has jacked up the price of cocaine so high it's worth killing to add territory? How many got shot today because the government made marijuana illegal, when making it legal could wipe out the demand for cocaine?

♠How is any of that the responsibility of the NRA? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Call me the next time someone shoots up a school or movie theater with a paperweight or with marijuana. The NRA promotes gun ownership, its that simple. How many people were shot today with guns for any reason? and How many people would have been shot today with guns if there weren't any guns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty scary question, "How many people would have been shot today with guns if there weren't any guns?" Quite simply, the crazy ones find another way to do what they intend to do. Timothy McVeigh is a good example. Then again you probably blame the Oklahoma City bombing on the NRA as well... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia NPOV policy, not politics. This is not a forum.

♠Yeah, it's always the fault of the guns. How many robberies were prevented by legally-owned guns yesterday? How many muggings? How many murders?

♠How many murders were committed with knives yesterday? How many assaults? Maybe we need knife control.

♠How many people died in car wrecks? How many robberies & other crimes were committed where cars were used to escape? Lets sue the car companies for complicity.

♠How many people died from smoking cigarettes yesterday? So why are cigarettes legal? They have two functions, & two only: deliver an addictive substance, & kill you, when used as intended. They have no redeeming social benefits. Yet guns are subject to restriction & ban, & cigarettes are for sale to teenagers.

♠The gun-ban zealots will never admit the hypocrisy of their position. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing politics. The NRA has nothing to do with bombs, knives or drugs.

OK, OK, Trek and I are off our soapboxes... ;) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you now address the NPOV status of this page and no longer attempt to spew politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Right after you do, which, by your responses so far, will be never. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues. My attempts to fix this article have been impeded by pro-gun activists. Advertisements are clearly against Wikipedia policy. This is not the place for pro-gun activism. I am going to make changes to the article which bring it in line with NPOV. I am not the one spewing pro-gun rhetoric, I simply want to bring the article in line with NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.218.228 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

since the article is using pending changes, you in fact will not be making changes to the article at all, unless you either register and stop your sockpuppetry, or build consensus for the changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have put my IP address out there for all to see. I refuse to hide behind a fake name. I have made no attempt to hide my IP address and am only trying to bring this article in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I will continue to make changes as long as my existence is ignored by those of you hiding behind fake names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.219.117 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like semi-protected didn't work. I just rv'd much the same change as before. Looks like IP 132 doesn't believe the NRA promotes safety (tho I recall Bill Jordan being pretty fanatic about it, & I'm pretty sure he was an NRA member). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I misspoke, we have pending changes on, not semi protected.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Safety" is a weasel word. "Gun proficiency training" is far more accurate and neutral.

Factually incorrect. "Safety" is the world used by virtually every jurisdiction which mandate "safety classes" and include the NRA classes as fulfilling the "safety education" requirements. Indeed the NRA is the main conductor of gun control advocates' pushed requirements for "Safety classes."108.48.225.194 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of specific changes

• non-profit -> non-profit-lobbying : Certainly they do lobbying, but they also do a lot of other activities, which are well known and sourced by many neutral reliable sources. If we want to add "and lobbying group" to the first sentence , I think that is justifiable, but in should be AND lobbying, not exclusively lobbying.
• They have MANY safety programs, again backed by indy rs. No way that gets removed.
• tenet->belief. Synonyms, but per WP:CLAIM tenet is more neutral. We are not stating anything about a fact of civil right or not

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

♠I can live with lobbying. Whatever else they are, NRA is a lobby (advocacy) group. Maybe "advocacy" is more neutral? "Gun rights advocacy group"?

♠Safety? Agreed. That's been a central theme for decades.

♠Tenet? That seems more an organization term; belief implies a person IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (PS. Wasn't trying to bust you over "protected"... :D )

Any overall characterization as lobbying is inaccurate. It's like one out of 10 major categories of things that they are/do. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is 1/10 yes, but that 1/10 is very notable. Do you object to adding "and lobbying organization" in the lede? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I'm assuming that you're talking about adding it to the sentence that lists some of the other functions, and listing it as another of those functions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See this is what I wanted! There is no consensus as to what the material on this article should say.

♠The NRA is widely known for its lobbying activities, it should be mentioned, at least, in the first sentence. EX: "The NRA is a non-profit organization, widely known for it lobbying activities."

♠The word "safety" is a weasel word. It accurately describes the activities of the NRA, only in the opinion those who agree with those activities. Wording like "gun proficiency" is less weasely. Some do not believe that such programs promote "safety", but instead promote knowledge of how to use a gun "properly".

The word "advocacy" does not accurately describe their activities though. Lobbying is not good or bad inherently. Greenpeace is just as much a "lobbying group" as the NRA is.

They do gun proficiency, yes. They also do things explicitly that are safety oriented. (Eddie eagle, storage recommendations, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Substituting "proficiency" for "safety" is POV, besides. It's not like NRA's sole objective is creating people better able to shoot up schools, contrary to what the gun banners might think--or try to persuade everybody else. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Substituting "safety" with "proficiency" is POV. Safety is a weasel word. The NRA want people to use guns properly. They do not want to end gun violence. I have never said that the NRA want people to shoot up schools, all I am saying is that they're "safety" programs are intended to teach people how to properly use guns, not to end or prevent gun violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.220.220 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proper use of firearm includes handling it safely, why do you not understand this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

gun "safety" is an oxymoron. and an opinion. The NRA is teaching proficiency and does not care about eradicating gun violence. That is a fact and should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.220.220 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Take your views on gun confiscation somewhere else. And quit trying to change the article to reflect only your POV. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I never once suggested "gun confiscation", you are the one who brought it up. I was discussing the status of the word "safety" and whether its inclusion in the article is NPOV or not. My intent is for this article to accurately portray the NRA in an objective and neutral fashion, I have never talked about wanting to get gun control law passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of jurisdictions requiring gun "safety" classes, and NRA classes are listed as "safety classes", by those jurisdictions. Just looking at Democrat dominated high gun control states and jurisdictions, California requires and accepts and defines NRA classes as "safety classes." So too does NY State, Washington DC, and every example I can find. In terms of lobbying vs advocacy, in the US the NRA would have its 501(c)4 non for profit status withdrawn by the IRS and run afoul of the FEC if it was doing any substantial lobbying. "Issues advocacy" and "issues education" are used, both colloquially, and legally, to describe the portion of what the NRA does that is aimed at public policy. There is a separate non 501c4 organization affiliated with the NRA that does lobbying. The NRA was audited by the IRS under Clinton, and found NOT to be doing any substantial (IRS definition of "substantial" is 10 to 15% of funds or resources directed at legislation) lobbying. Lobbying is quite literally and legally an in substantial amount of its efforts.108.48.225.194 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Header

The {controversial} heading should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.219.117 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

Or do you mean a template warning? Please sign your posts. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

...and why? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced is the word

I was doing some housekeeping on the Gun politics in the U.S. article, which brought me here, which brought me to this discussion, started and shut-down rapidly six months ago. The IP user above tried to add some criticism to the lead.[4] He or she may have been clumsy about it, but has a valid point. Considering the volume of criticism the NRA gets, very little of it is shared with our readers. Do we need to slap it around? No. Do we need to add some WP:BALANCE, giving it appropriate WP:WEIGHT? Yes. The piddling Criticism section is disproportionate in size to the size of the whole article. And the only way we could bury it deeper would be to put it after the little "Notable members" section that currently follows it - and which is the LAST section in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the mass tagging of this article but my revert was quickly reverted before I could post here. Perhaps one tag at the beginning of the article would suffice if we have consensus for it. Otherwise, I will revert one more time.--Asher196 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "mass tagging." I tagged four sections that need work: three in the article, plus the lead. We can remove the tags as we balance the sections, saving the lead for last. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with it, if you're ok with adding "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to all the anti gun organizations.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. You should know me better than that. That's not my point at all. If YOU want to add that to all the pro-gun and/or pro-control organizations' articles, good luck. However, it's clear from the recent history of this article (say the past 12 months) that anyone trying to add some criticism gets shown the door fast. Not naming anyone in particular, but I see that some editors who are now topic-banned from gun control articles for pushing extreme pro-gun items were involved in some of those discussions of the past year.

However, rather than dwell on our differences, how can we introduce some criticism to the sections that need it. Are existing article sources sufficient? Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll throw a source at you, I know the author and some folks have demonized him for speaking against the NRA and the organization considers him persona non grata, but I found him to be pretty neutral and more importantly, honest.

• Feldman, Richard (12 May 2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13099-5.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources

OK, Mike. I'll start the list with yours. Then I'll comb the article's current sources. Let's brainstorm, and we can choose later.

• Feldman, Richard (12 May 2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13099-5.

This one does an excellent of describing the NRA's organizational structure in an easy-to-understand way:

• Hickey, Walter (December 18, 2012). "How The NRA Became The Most Powerful Special Interest In Washington". Business Insider.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources already in the Lobbying section (now Contemporary history section; see separate discussion below - contains Feldman source, too):

• Jill Lepore (April 23, 2012). "Battleground America: One nation, under the gun". The New Yorker. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Shaiko, Ronald G.; Wallace, Marc A. (1998). "Going Hunting Where the Ducks Are: The National Rifle Association and the Grass Roots". In Bruce, John M.; Wilcox, Clyde (eds.). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. OCLC 833118449. Retrieved April 8, 2014. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Neal Knox (2009). Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War. MacFarlane Press. pp. 299–300.
• Achenbach, Joel; Higham, Scott; Horwitz, Sari (January 12, 2013). "How NRA's true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby". Washington Post.
• Utter, Glenn H. (2000). Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. pp 99-100, 137-8, 161-3, 166-7, 186, 219-220
• Neal Knox (2009). Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War. pp. 314–20.
• Spitzer, Robert J. (1998). The Politics of Gun Control. p 88 (I have latest ed. from 2012)
• Raymon, Emilie (2006). From My Cold, Dead Hands: Charlton Heston and American Politics (biography). University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-2408-7. pp 262-68, quote p. 265

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Political advocacy section

Discuss balancing/weighting material, including adding due, balancing criticism, in the Political advocacy section. Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: the Political advocacy section in the overall WP:STRUCTURE of this article: it is WP:DUE higher placement. One-hundred years ago, the NRA was primarily about safety and sporting programs, but that all changed during the Cincinnati Revolution. Most WP:V, WP:RS material now is about its influence on politics and gun laws. Plus, it lists protecting and defending the 2nd Amendment as its primary purpose/objective in its bylaws. And that is why I made this [5] edit - regardless of what kind of criticism we add or do not add to the section. Lightbreather (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the 2nd main section of the article. To place it any higher would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. I'm removing the tag for this reason. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I am not suggesting placing it higher. It was 3rd - after "Safety and sporting programs," but being 2nd now is better. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Leadership section

Discuss balancing/weighting material, including criticism, in the Leadership section. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest pulling the Leadership and Notable members sections together, possibly under a new unifying header, or under Political advocacy or Organizational structure and finances. What do y'all think? Lightbreather (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - You're trying to fix a problem that did not exist until you started editing the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Lobbying section

Discuss balancing/weighting material, including criticism, in the Lobbying section. Lightbreather (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gads. I thought this section would be a piece of cake, but upon further thought, not so. What is titled "Lobbying" is really more about Cincinnati Revolution. That is to say, about the big power shift and the shift in leadership focus from sport and safety to politics. Therefore, I propose starting with the Leadership section, which is near the bottom of the article, and working our way up till we get back to "Lobbying." That will give us all time to consider what that section is really about, or what we think it should be about. Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I made some edits today that solved two problems. I renamed the "Lobbying" section to "Contemporary history."([6] scroll down) At the same time, I removed the unbalanced tag that was on that section.[7] This solved the problem explained in my "Gads" post yesterday, and it solved the problem of some editors resisting how many section tags are currently in the article; there were three, now there are only two - except for the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

References - and date format

While I'm working on the Balance/weight discussions related edits, I will be improving many of the source citations using WP:CS1. I usually enter dates in "month dd, yyyy" format, but it appears this article used first and/or uses mainly "yyyy-mm-dd" format - so I will use that, unless someone objects. It really doesn't matter to me - only that it be consistent. Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in this article about?

Just so they doesn't get overlooked any longer...

1. I can find nothing in this article about the NRA's political activities at the state and local levels of government. There should be at least a good paragraph about this.
2. Also, there is nothing about its famous "report cards" on elected officials. There should be something about that somewhere, too. Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Balance/weight Lead section

I suggest first something that doesn't have to do with criticism of the organization, but that will improve the readability of the lead. Per WP:MOSINTRO, remove the over-specific descriptions and difficult to understand IRS terminology and put those details in the Lobbying Organizational structure section. Specifically, I'm talking about the lead's second paragraph, which reads:

The NRA is designated by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) with four 501(c)(3) charitable subsidiaries and a Section 527 lobbying group segregated fund: The NRA Political Victory Fund. The NRA controls through its board of trustees the following 501(c)(3) organizations: NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, NRA Foundation Inc., NRA Special Contribution Fund (dba NRA Whittington Center), and NRA Freedom Action Foundation. The NRA is also the parent organization of affiliated groups such as the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA).

That is NOT "accessible" (again, per WP:MOSINTRO). Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should probably stay open until after the Lobbying Contemporary history, Political advocacy, and Leadership sections and properly weighted and balanced with due criticism per WP:V WP:RS. Lightbreather (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• The infobox had a source for James Porter being the NRA's president that wasn't the most NPOV choice (very critical), so I removed it[8] after putting it in the Further reading section[9] for now as it is appropriate for the Leadership section. The other source for Porter being the president is a link to an NRA article that doesn't work. I will try to find an archived copy, but if I don't I'll probably remove that, too, as this piece of factual information is not likely to be challenged. Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Have been working on sources mostly today. This statement:

The group has a nearly century long record of influencing as well as lobbying for or against proposed firearm legislation on behalf of its members, and calls itself America's longest-standing civil rights organization.

Has this source attached: "NRA History". nra.org. National Rifle Association.

I am removing the the second part ("and calls itself...") as two other U.S. orgs also make this claim. Rather than get into that debate in the lead, I've given the basics in the Political activity section. As for the first part of the statement, perhaps the source given once supported it, but it doesn't now - nor can I find an archived copy that does. I am going to change the sentence to give roughly the same goes-back-a-long-time info based on what the current sources do say. Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-profit infobox?

Maybe we should be using the "non-profit" infobox in the article instead of the "organization" infobox? Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the answer to that was "yes," since another editor did swap out the old with the new.[10] Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

Hurricane Katrine should be corrected to Katrina. 68.88.232.108 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Good catch.  NQ  talk 00:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity members

I removed a paragraph and another editor restored it. [11] The removed material is solely names of celebrity members. I look at this as trivia, little more than name-dropping. I'm restoring ones who are board members, with a proper source. Any other opinions on the others who aren't in leadership? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from Heston and Selleck, I was unaware of the other celebrity Board Members, so thank you for this change and improvement. I originally added the celebrity members because I found numerous articles that cited their membership whether it was for positive or negative attention by the press. But having this new connection makes far more sense in the context of the article. Again, thank you, nice addition. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this section, Niteshift36. I made an edit to add the year and website to the citations, and corrected the publisher. Meetthenra.org is not published by the NRA, but by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence - which is affiliated with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Although I'm sure some would object to adding this material to the article, it is in keeping with my stated objective of 28 May 2014.[12][13] Now that we have some sources in the article to provide a little balance in the form of criticism, would you care to help me add the criticism? It needs to be added to the sections and/or subsections of Contemporary history, Political activity, and Organizational structure and finances. There is an existing Criticism section, but I'm torn on continuing to present criticism separately. There are pros and cons to using that kind of format.

I will state again, for the record, as I did on May 28, we don't need to paint the organization or its leaders as villains, but considering how much negative press they get, it is important that more of that is reflected in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• My error in the publisher. Is the group website unreliable? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• No problem. It's reliable, but WP:BIASED. Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I won't dispute the bias. But what we're using them to source, board membership, isn't contentious. My feeling won't be hurt if it gets removed. Just trying to make it relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, I'm not suggesting the source be removed. I'm suggesting that at least some criticism needs to be introduced into the article. The NRA and its leaders receive criticism pretty regularly, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a separate discussion, but on he surface National_Rifle_Association#Criticism seems to cover it adequately to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion 3X now of info from OpenSecrets via Sunlight Foundation and other sources

Have asked for an opinion at WP:3O.

Scalhotrod keeps deleting information cited to OpenSecrets.org: When I added it, I gave one source: the Sunlight Foundation. First he edited it[14] as part of a larger edit (scroll down to paragraph that begins "In 2012, 88 percent...") Then he deleted it[15] with the edit summary "This needs to be supported by a far more WP:RS than a blog that is NOT using statistics from an editorial source such as OpenSecrets.org" I started a discussion about this and other edits on his talk page,[16] and I added the info back, with more sources. He deleted the discussion I'd started on his talk page[17] without comment, and two days later he deleted the info from this article again[18] as part of a larger edit with the edit summary (partial) "... removing material that is based on editorial content by a non-WP:RS, OpenSecrets.org" He has deleted it now for the third time[19] in five days, giving a link to an RSN from 2011 about Koch Industries and the Sunlight Foundation.

The data from OpenSecrets has been cited by (at least) Lee Drutman with the Sunlight Foundation, Joseph Cameron with The Hill, and Chris Cizzilla with the Washington Post.

The question: Are these WP:RS? Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If it will help anyone reading this, here is what was deleted:

In 2012, 88 percent of Republicans and 11 percent of Democrats in Congress had received an NRA PAC contribution at some point in their career. Of the members of the Congress that convened in 2013, 51 percent received funding from the NRA PAC within their political careers, and 47 percent received NRA money in their most recent race.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Have asked for an opinion at WP:3O. Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. The 3O request has been removed because there has been no thorough discussion of this issue before making the request. 3O, like all other forms of mediated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If a party will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC) PS: If the only question is whether certain sources are or are not reliable, you might consider asking over at reliable sources noticeboard. — TM 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Here is the discussion: NRA PAC contributions to Congressional candidates. Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion multiple times of Senate confirmation info

Also, Scalhotrod keeps removing this info about the NRA's influence on Senate confirmations. With the first deletion,[20] he left the edit summary "Claiming that the NRA is the primary influence in these appointments is stretch as best, lets stick to facts, not hypothesis," though what he deleted did not claim that the NRA is the primary influence in in these appointments. With the second deletion, [21] he left the edit summary "Clean up." I asked him on his talk page to restore the paragraph or start a discussion here, or at WP:RSN. He deleted that[22] with the edit summary "Cleanup." His third and most recent deletion of the info is here:[23] Lightbreather (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• What I read in the source is that Democrats asserted that Republicans were just doing what the NRA wanted. Big shocker: One side says the other one is catering to special interests. At best, this allegation is circumstantial. To be blunt, each side opposes the others nominations all the time for all sorts of stuff. The ATF appointment isn't exactly the most important one out there. This seems sort of minor to me. If we were talking about the Sec of State or a Supreme Court Justice, I might look at it as more important. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• What is clear from these sources is that this is NOT primarily a partisan issue, and that is not a shocker because, as our article says, the NRA is a single-issue organization and it grades politicians based on their positions and voting records on gun control/rights. Also, when it comes to the topic of firearms, the ATF director is important - or should be. However, how you and I see these things doesn't matter - what matters is that a preponderence of WP:V, WP:RS report that the NRA is influential when it comes to Senate confirmation hearings. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If it will save some reading this extra work, here is what was deleted:

Some senators resisted confirming B. Todd Jones as the director of ATF because of the NRA's opposition to Jones, and others are opposed to confirming Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General because the NRA says Murthy advocates "radical gun control measures."

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Some other sources of evidence of NRA's influence over Senate confirmations:

• Skiba, Katherine (2011-02-16). "Gun lobby stands firm in opposing Obama's ATF nominee". Chicago Tribune.
• Puschak, Evan (2012-12-26). "ATF handicapped by laws and a lack of leader".
• Durkin, Mike (2013-06-11). "B. Todd Jones: ATF was already 'in distress'". Fox Television Stations.
• Yager, Jordy (2013-06-18). "Sen. Durbin pressures gun lobby with threat to move ATF authority to FBI". The Hill.
• Freedman, Dan (2013-07-30). "Acting ATF director Todd Jones appears headed for confirmation". San Francisco Chronicle.
• Horwitz, Sari (2013-07-31). "Senate confirms ATF director". Washington Post.
• Peters, Justin (2013-08-29). "After Seven Long Years of Gun Lobby Stalling, the ATF Has a New Permanent Director". Slate.
• Viser, Matt; Bierman, Noah (2014-03-15). "Surgeon general nominee runs into Senate resistance". Boston Globe.
• Peterson, Kristina; Nelson, Colleen McCain; Dooren, Jennifer Corbett (2014-03-15). "Some Democrats Balk at Confirming Obama's Surgeon General Pick". Wall Street Journal.
• Sherfinski, David (2014-03-16). "With delay of surgeon general, NRA flexes election-year clout in Senate: Confirmation of Obama nominee delayed over gun rights". Washington Times.
• Ball, Krystal (2014-03-17). "The NRA shoots down a qualified Obama nominee". NBC Universal.
• Carpenter, Zoe (2014-03-18). "Why the NRA Is Blocking Obama's Surgeon General Nominee". The Nation.
• "White House backs off surgeon general nominee push amid Dem resistance". FoxNews.com. 2014-03-19.
• Madhani, Aamer; Szabo, Lis (2014-03-19). "In battle over U.S. top doc, medical journal slams NRA". USA Today.
• Rothberg, Daniel (2014-03-21). "NRA moves to new arena in fight over surgeon general In opposing nominee Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, the organization extends its reach beyond judicial nominees in what may be a bid to keep its members engaged and fight off more extreme groups". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |title= at position 53 (help)
• Eilperin, Juliet (2014-03-26). "Chances for Obama nominees to be confirmed are falling, even with over two years to go". Washington Post.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Word from RSN re this, too:

• NRA influence of Senate confirmations
• NRA influence on Surgeon General confirmation

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Article currently hijacked by a Left Wing POV Pusher

What can be done to bring some balance back to this article? It seems someone who claims to have been an editor in a "previous" life does not understand the concept of credible sources. I find that amazing unless the editing was for specoius media outlets. 24.177.109.112 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Materials for this article

1) The NRA: Still America’s Cosa Nostra - 95.29.151.79 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC).

Civil rights organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it makes sense to remove "The National Rifle Association says it is "America's longest-standing civil rights organization";[35][36] the National Association of the Deaf and the NAACP make similar claims.[32][37]" altogether from the Political activity section? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government and non-profit classification

I did some checking and its not just the NRA's "opinion" that what they do is civil rights related, but its an actual classification. There's a Category system call the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities[24] that is used to sort the various non-profits. The Guidestar website database lists the categories that the NRA occupies which are R01 and R60, "Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy - Alliance/Advocacy Organizations" and "Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy - Civil Liberties Advocacy" respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government makes all kinds of determinations. That don't mean we're supposed to report 'em all. According to this link[25] it looks like all gun control and gun rights organizations would be in the same category. You gonna add this to every article?

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

Scalhotrod threatened to take me before an admin[26] if I didn't self-revert these edits[27][28][29] (changing "civil rights" and "right to keep and bear arms" to "gun rights") so I have reverted them. Lightbreather (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to revert your edits until this discussion had concluded or resolved itself[30]. You know all too well that both of us are under additional scrutiny regarding our edits on any gun politics article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there is no need for you to be bitter about it[31], when all I am doing is making the effort to be civil. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your exact words were these:

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

That sounds like a threat to me, even though I had previously asked you - twice[32][33] - to return the discussion to this page. I will say no further about this unless you make a further issue of it. Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Litigation

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

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

Here's a source. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The NRA is suing to allow gun sales to people "who are found to pose a risk of "imminent harm" to themselves or others," because such ordinances "do not make people safer", using a brand new law they lobbied for.[34][35] And one of their first targets just happens to be a city whose mayor signed on with MAIG.[36] Felsic (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Notability of funding

This information has recently been added to the article: "The NRA Freedom Action Foundation is a grantee of the Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund, according to Mother Jones, the progressive news magazine, and Media Matters for America, the progressive media watchdog." There are numerous issues with this material. First, it's not even about the article's main subject--the NRA--but about an affiliated group (which perhaps needs its own article if notable enough). Second, the sourcing is incredibly flimsy. One trivial, incidental mention in a Mother Jones hit piece. And then Media Matters, which has consistently been found to be an unreliable source at WP:RSN. Moreover, the material is not notable, as there's no indication of the amount or significance of the funding. It is mentioned briefly in passing. Surely there are more notable and more well-documented donors to the NRA. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't view this as contentious as much as I view it as badly constructed. Personally I would change "grantee of" to "recipient of funds from" for starters and then fix the Wiki links. The Mother Jones one is a Disam page. As long as the nature of the source is properly identified and its potential bias is acknowledged, it seems to be acceptable and sourced content. This might be an issue for the Reliable Source Noticeboard, but there's no need to Edit war over this in the mean time.

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

On the other hand, if the amount of money received is relatively insignificant in relation to the NRA's overall budget, then this addition is pointless and WP:UNDUE. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It was apparently a donation to the "NRA Freedom Foundation," not the NRA itself, and the amount of funding is not included in the source. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article includes some content related to the NRA's foundations, starting from the info box. The one sentence we are discussing was added to an existing paragraph on an NRA-related foundation. Hugh (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Weight is proportional to coverage in RS, not the relative weight among all funders. We don't need to find all funders and rank order them before we can mention one. Here the identification of a noteworthy funder of an NRA fund by multiple noteworthy reliable sources establishes due weight. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I consider the text in question to be a trivial example of information presently adequately summarized in the finances section. Thewellman (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The finances section is mainly about the finances of the NRA proper. The content under discussion here is one sentence regarding an NRA-related foundation, which is identified as such in the info box, but that does not have its own article. Explicitly identifying the donor here aids the encyclopedia by increasing wikilinking. Hugh (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't belong. Just because someone with a point found a factoid about a NRA related topic doesn't mean it belongs in the article. And increasing wikilinking is hardly a good reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add this material. Please remove it. Your last edit summary is also disingenuous [37]. Your addition of this material was clearly not a "copy edit." Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova:, it was apparently $100,000 in 2011, see here, on the second PDF, page 10. It appears that the NRA-FAF raised $1.9 million according to their 2011 tax return here. But according to this article, the NRA as a whole had revenue of about $250 million in 2010. After more reading on the Donors Trust organization, it looks like they're the financial equivalent of a proxy. I concur with your assessment; I don't think the information here is WP:DUE, as it only relates to about 0.04% of their revenue, and does not seem to have been widely reported outside of the Mother Jones article and some re-blogs of that same article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for this percent of total revenue criteria? Because my understanding is that weight is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The donor and the recipient are notable. The sources are noteworthy RS. We don't need to find all funders and rank order them before we can mention one. We are building an encyclopedia incrementally with volunteers. As it stands, the only specific donors to the NRA and its associated funds named in this article are three gun manufacturers from a FactCheck. Is that a fair summary of RS? Hugh (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just because there is a RS doesn't give something an express ticket to inclusion. Are we analyzing the funding of all the NRA divisions? Or even most of them? Specific industry examples might be appropriate, but trying to rope politics into the funding source discussion looks more like making a point than trying to be informative. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair for you to push back on a fellow editor's contribution with "that edit has to be part of a comprehensive analysis." Here on WP weight is established by RS. The donor is notable. The recipient is notable. The sources are reliable and noteworthy. It belongs here. It is an improvement, albeit incremental. Better coverage of funders is a priority for this article. Right now this article names just three specific funders, three gun manufacturers. This is very obviously non-neutral with respect to the copious RS on the funding of the NRA and its foundations. We are building an encyclopedia incrementally by keeping volunteers happy. We have to start somewhere. A reminder here you have an editor new to this article trying to contribute . Hugh (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the latest version to get reverted:

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

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

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

This is absurdly undue. A hundred thousand dollar contribution in a $40 million foundation that is raising $ millions annually is peanuts. Just a quick google search shows many such donors in the news. Henry Rifles donated $100,000 to the foundation. Cabela's recently did the same. Presumably there are many annual $100,000 donors. Why this donor? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. Please help improve the coverage of the funders of the NRA and its associated funds. I look forward to your contributions of new content and new reliable sources. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That response does not address the concerns I or the other editors have raised here. (I'd also note I did include a link above.) Capitalismojo (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, your link is to the NRA Foundation, not the NRA Freedom Action Foundation. People tend to support - or at least not oppose - firearm safety training, but FAF aims to "educate" and register voters. That does tend to be notable. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not so much. This is a tiny, tiny fraction of the NRA's budget and activities. A miniscule amount. It is undue in this article. Perhaps if there was a NRA FAF article it wouldn't be undue, perhaps. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are not misconstruing WP:DUE. Weight in WP is in proportional to coverage in RS, not relative to some whole. We are not required to identify all funders, and order them in descending order of dollar amount, before we can mention one funder that is highlighted in RS. Here, the donor is notable, the recipient is notable, and the references are noteworthy. Hugh (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not misconstruing it, thanks, nor do I think the other editors here with the same concern are. Perhaps, rather than just making a bland assertion of notability, we could have a reason(s) why this is notable and should be included. We see a minor (0.004%) anonymous donation. You believe that is inherently notable. OK. Why? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is not clear from my earlier comments in this thread? Sigh. The funding is notable because of WP:DUE: the donor is notable, the recipient is notable, and the reliable sources are noteworthy. On what basis do you keep coming back to the percentage thing? Hugh (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

So far I've seen just the two Mother Jones articles. The NRA gets a very brief mention in passing - I'm don't think that's enough to warrant an entire paragraph. And it's absolutely undue if we end up implying that the Donors Trust organization is a major source of funding for the NRA. It isn't. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither the sources nor the proposed content states or implies that anything is a major funder. It just says funder. A mention in passing is a mention. Two mentions is what noteworthy looks like. Most of the content in this article has one source. I don't think it's fair for you to say to a fellow editor, look, this article is so pathetic at identifying funders that I'm sorry but your attempt to remedy that is just too incremental to be taken seriously. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's trivial. Something like six or seven editors here have disagreed with this inclusion. Perhaps that might indicate something. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Based purely on votes, it's 6 to 2, I think. I haven't been convinced by the opposing arguments, but HughD, I suggest you change your tack here and include material about dark-money contributions to the NRA to help influence elections... in the "Elections" section, rather than this $100K donation that the other editors think doesn't belong in the "Finances" section (subsection sources below). Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• When did this become "dark money"? The NRA is usually pretty straight forward about who they endorse. If Donor Trust gives to the NRA but doesn't tell them who gave it to them and the NRA discloses that it gives it to a candidate, that's not dark money. We know it came from the NRA and what their intentions are. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. How is the original post sentence above a better fit under "Elections?" It is a grant to an NRA fund. Doesn't it fit in better in conjunction with another sentence about the finances of another NRA fund? Is the FAF a PAC? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The original would not fit well under elections. However, the bigger picture your attempt to post this item uncovered is that the article is missing information about how the NRA influences elections through its Freedom Action Foundation (in this case), which has received funds from Donors Trust (as your source shows) as well as Clayton Williams, the Koch Brothers, and August A. Busch III (as sources below show). Lightbreather (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Elections subsection or Finances subsection

Maybe, instead of being in the Finances subsection of "Organizational structure and finances" there should be a bit it the Elections subsection of "Political activity"? After all, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation is about influencing elections. Here are some sources:

• Gonyea, Don (May 17, 2010). "NRA Looks To Build On Tea Party Movement". NPR. Remember the MTV campaign to get young people to the polls called 'Rock the Vote'? Norris is the honorary chairman of a new NRA ad campaign called 'Trigger the Vote.'
• Norris, Chuck (September 21, 2010). "Trigger The Vote!" (Column). Townhall.com.
• Beckel, Michael (January 11, 2011). "After Arizona Shooting, Gun Control Advocates Push For New Restrictions". Center for Responsive Politics.
• Sands, Geneva (February 15, 2012). "'Full Metal Jacket' actor urges supporters to 'trigger the vote' in NRA campaign". The Hill. The [Peace and Quiet] ad, which is part of the NRA's multimillion-dollar campaign, will air in select states across the country in a six-figure media buy, according to Cox.
• Stone, Peter H. (April 10, 2012). "NRA, Ralph Reed group plan get-out-the-vote efforts". Center for Public Integrity. 'This election is going to be won on the ground,' said Chris Cox, the top lobbyist for NRA which has recently launched what appears to be its biggest registration drive ever with a multimillion-dollar price tag.... Most of the voter registration funding comes from the NRA's Freedom Action Foundation, a nonprofit arm that doesn't have to disclose its donors, Cox said. The Center has reported that one prominent foundation donor is Texas energy magnate Clayton Williams, who last year boasted at a Houston luncheon that drew top NRA officials, that he gave $1 million to the foundation in 2010 and intended to do so again in 2012.
• Hirschkorn, Phil (April 14, 2012). "Gun enthusiasts unite at NRA convention". CBS Interactive.
• Stone, Peter H. (June 1, 2012). "Koch Brothers Plan To Funnel Tens Of Millions To Conservative Allies To Influence 2012 Elections". Huffington Post.
• Stone, Peter (April 2, 2013). "Inside the NRA's Koch-Funded Dark-Money Campaign". Mother Jones.
• Camia, Catalina (July 23, 2014). "NRA kicks off voter registration drive with provocative ad". USA Today. ... the NRA is seeking to register as many voters as it can and to get its grass-roots network involved to counter former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's plans to spend $50 million to motivate voters.
• "National Rifle Association's Freedom Action Foundation Presents Chuck Norris' Top Ten Reasons to Register to Vote". Fairfax, Virginia: National Rifle Association, Political Victory Fund. August 13, 2014. The video addresses a cause close to Chuck Norris's heart - protecting our Second Amendment rights - and counts down his top ten reasons to register to vote in both humorous and serious tones. The individual reasons have been broken down into fifteen-second ads and will run online as part of a 7-digit paid media buy by NRA-FAF.
• Lavender, Paige (August 13, 2014). "Chuck Norris In NRA Ad: Register To Vote 'Because I Said So'". Huffington Post.
• Fessler, Pam (September 18, 2014). "Ads Get Creative, Even Seductive, To Attract Voters". NPR.
• August A. Busch III. "One-on-One with August A. Busch III" (Interview). Interviewed by Chris W. Cox. {{cite interview}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

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

• Perhaps, as has been suggested, the FAF should be a separate article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not notable/undue for this article - but it might be notable for it's own article? I think a paragraph in the Elections subsection is due, but that there probably isn't enough at this time to justify its own article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• You act like the suggestion is unheard of. Want an example? Talking about the available transmissions of Ford Mustangs in the parent article about Ford Motor Company would be a matter of something not notable being placed into the Ford article. However, it would be completely reasonable to put it into a separate article about the Mustang. The suggestions is for an article on the FAF, not an article on the finances of the FAF. Please don't pretend like you didn't know this. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

• I'm responding to YOU, concerning something YOU said. The use of YOU is perfectly appropriate and not a matter of commenting on the contributor. Calm down. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Calm yourself. Your comment would have been completely about content if you'd omitted the first two sentences and the last sentence. With those sentences, it was about more than content. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't act like the suggestion is unheard of, I won't make the observation that you're acting like it's unheard of. And now asking if you'd like an example is offensive? Wow, you are getting touchy. I'll admit, the last sentence was iffy. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and presumed that you were just pretending to not understand that 3 people have suggested a separate article about the FAF. I apologize for not realizing that you weren't pretending. Now, if you're done trying to divert attention, can you get back to the actual discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It is natural and common that an article gestate within a parent. For now, from the infobox on down this is THE article for the NRA and its associated funds and foundations. I'm sure everyone wants to avoid a POV fork. As the content related to a particular fund or foundation gets heavier, I would support a fork, but we are a long way off in the near future. Hugh (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Business Insider source

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

1) The author makes several factual errors:

a) It's "Cabela's", not "Cabalas"

b) It's "Sturm, Ruger" not "Sturm, Rugar"

c) He states, in 2013, that "Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions". Ruger's donation program ended in 2012, with a total contribution of $1,253,700.

2) The author does not appear to be a real journalist. Other contributions include stories like "The 10 Governors You Absolutely Have To Watch In 2013" and "24 Charts That Show How People Talk Totally Differently On Facebook As They Get Older". His final contribution to the website was "19 Famous Thomas Jefferson 'Quotes' That He Actually Never Said At All".

I've pulled it for now and put in a Citation Needed tag. I've also pulled the reference to the NSSF - the way the sentence is phrased strongly implies (in a way I feel violates WP:DUE's policy on placement of facts) that the NRA gets over 50% of its funding from the industry. "Contributions" includes member contributions, and the NRA is famous (notorious?) for asking its members for far more than their yearly membership dues. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think the guy is likely a "real" journalist, but he is a prime example of how sloppy some sources are and then years later someone will be saying "it's in a reliable source" on Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Hickey is a real journalist, though obviously his editor could have done a better job of checking the piece's spelling of "Cabela" and "Ruger." The Ruger 1 Million Challenge to Benefit the NRA ran from (according to Ruger) April 2011 through March 2012 and made $1.253 million(s), as you say. That's not thousands. Perhaps he didn't have Ruger's final total to report? Even so, the statement - which isn't quoted in our article - is true. Lightbreather (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I seriously doubt he has an editor. And "millions" means 2 million or more. And the program ended in 2012. Here's the press release. In the article he talks about it in the present tense. The statement is false on two counts. I would hope we could find a better source for this topic than a clickbait blogger. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

I suggest not editwarring this. Get consensus before reverting. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

On March 31, after Faceless Enemy learned that I was out of town visiting a friend in the hospital - and that I'd broken my arm[38] - he made this string of (mass) edits[39][40][41][42][43] moving and REMOVING material that I added three weeks previously. When I restored the version from before his series of edits[44] and asked him to wait for me to return to discuss his problems with the material,[45] he accused me of "mass reversion"[46] and restored his preferred version (a deletion/net loss to the article[47]). He continues to do so, giving different reasons for what he did. (Originally calling what he didn't like "clickbait," but today saying (on his talk page) he removed "undue" material.)

A related discussion is on his talk page under Request. Lightbreather (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps RSN can help to determine whether the material is "click-bait", if a consensus does not seem possible? Darknipples (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably the best way forward. It's worth noting, however, that even if the articles in question are found to be reliable, we should not be paraphrasing WP:BIASED stuff in the encyclopedia's voice. Perhaps "According to Walter Hickey..." in front of the statement might be appropriate, if his opinion is really worthwhile, especially since we have better sources for a lot of the stuff we were relying on his articles for. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please make up your mind. Either you're concerned about being outed and people knowing your person business or your're not because you constantly overshare and reveal details about your life. You even overshare when you are commenting about things you want to keep private[48]. A recent WP:ANI listing you posted was essentially laughed off the board because of your whining about off-Wiki personal matters[49]. Personally, I don't care what is or is not going on in your personal life and I wish you'd keep it off WP.

Your accusation is baseless and utter nonsense. You owe Faceless Enemy an apology for this attack and untenable accusation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, you like sharing that story - what you called my being laughed off ANI - but you only give part of the story. I asked for help with one article (Silicon Valley) and one editor (you),[50] and an admin responded: "provide a list of all articles you would prefer to be full-protected until you are ready to edit at your normal level again."[51] He also said "it might be simpler to just full-protect the entire encyclopedia until you're ready to return." I thought that was uncalled for under the circumstances, but decided to let it go as an episode of an admin not at the top of their game - kinda like me right now...

You've told TParis[52] and others that you'd like to be an admin someday. I asked this question on the Silicon Valley talk page, but you didn't answer it: Do you think the way this admin responded to my request was appropriate? Since you've found it necessary to bring up this separate dispute here, I'd appreciate an answer. Lightbreather (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think how you were responded to at WP:ANI was not unreasonable. In fact, I think you got off easy. But you've demonstrated that you are someone who is offended easily and, worse yet, take offense by actions that are not directed at you personally, but are simply common activities on this site such as making an edit to something you have contributed. That's not a personal attack regardless of the timing of it, its just how the site works. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod & Lightbreather, some of these comments don't seem to have much to do with improving this article. May I suggest keeping personal commentary to personal talk pages? Let's try to stay civil here, at least. Darknipples (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

1. 11:46, 31 March 2015 Faceless Enemy removed two source citations (Business Insider) that had been in the article and discussed weeks earlier and replaced them with a "citation needed" tag. He gave the edit summary "removed clickbait 'source'".This left four statements as appearing to be unsourced.
2. 11:54, 31 March 2015 Faceless Enemy replaced one source for one statement with one he preferred, with edit summary "added source".
3. 11:57, 31 March 2015 He added a sentence to the middle of a paragraph. No edit summary.
4. 11:59, 31 March 2015 He moved the closing sentence of the section to the top of the section, and deleted one statement that he'd left unsourced with edit #1, calling it "editorializing".
5. 12:07, 31 March 2015 He moved another sentence and replaced another instance of the "citation needed" tags he'd created with a source he preferred.

Again, Faceless Enemy, if you want to add some stuff, fine, but please restore the material you removed. If you won't, then I will.

--Lightbreather (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There are 4 content disagreements here. I will open a new section of the TP for each of them, since they are separable and it would help to avoid confusion. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

There are at least four places I could be responding to Faceless Enemy right now. 1. Last night, at 23:18 UTC, he put a detailed 3RR warning on MY Talk page.[53] 2. Two-and-one-half hours later, he started a formal 3RR at WP:AN/3.[54] And 3. HERE, on THIS article's talk page, especially with his creation of the four discussions of his specific concerns. Lightbreather (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We might also have discussed these on HIS Talk page, in the Request discussion that I started there on MARCH 31 (two weeks ago) in an effort to begin (albeit slowly owing to my being out of town to help a hospitalized friend, and having broken my own elbow, too) to resolve our dispute (rather than simply capitulate on his re-deletion of material we had already discussed only three weeks before in two discussions here, on this article's page: Notability of funding#Reliability of Business Insider source and Discussion of wording of opening paragraph of Finances section.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So I have decided to reply here, in one place, though I will put notices at those other places so that anyone watching those discussions can follow along. Lightbreather (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss edit warring at the noticeboard, and the content disputes in their own sections (Hickey should be discussed at RSN). Our personal TPs aren't a good place for content disagreements. IMO this section of the article TP no longer serves a useful purpose. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of wording of opening paragraph of Finances section

I started this discussion on 10 March 2015 with the head "Edit war re opening paragraph of Finances section".[55] It was changed to "Discussion of wording of opening paragraph of Finances section"[56] by another editor. Lightbreather (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph was, for months:

Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the industry has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."

Although the url to the first source was wrong, so I fixed it here,[57] and restored the paragraph[58] after Faceless Enemy's deletion.[59] It, or part of it, has been deleted a couple times since then for less-than-convincing reasons.[60][61]

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

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

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

I strongly disagree with the edit summary provided on the recent revert, "unnecessary, preceding sentence is clear and straightforward" that those two sentence adequately summarize reliable sources regarding the funding of the NRA and its associated funds and foundations. Of course those two sentences are so artfully general, encompassing dues, fees, contributions, grants, royalties, advertising, and gun manufacturers, all in ONE sentence, so as to in some sense say it all! Of course this is grossly non-neutral with respect to the copious detail in reliable sources regarding the funding of the NRA & friends. Better balance of this article with RS on funding is a top priority in approaching neutrality. We need more content and more reliable sources in this important section. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Strong agree that we need to make it clear where the funding comes from. Right now I think we are implying that the gun industry makes up a majority or a plurality of their funding. It doesn't. But I agree that it is also important not to downplay their funding. I think a table with percentages and dollar amounts for the most recent year for which RS are available would really make things clear for the readers in a factual and easy-to-read way. As an added bonus, it would hopefully be relatively easy to reach consensus on. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Lightbreather, interesting that you want to title this section "edit war". Couldn't that "edit war" be avoided if you simply discussed it here to see if there was consensus first? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah...I don't feel it's an edit war either. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I calls 'em like a see 'em, that's all. But at any rate, we seem to be making some progress now. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How about changing "considerable amount" to "portion" to remove of uncertainty of how much/little/majority/minority. The source says "Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million" which makes it hard to apply any math to a specific year in order to say "considerable". This is starting to border on WP:SYNTH and hint of POV. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, "significant amount" feels like we're editorializing in the encyclopedia's voice. "Portion" is both accurate and neutral. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The source also says "much of it originating from gun industry sources." A synonym for "much" is "considerable," which is more specific than "portion." Lightbreather (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And "portion" is just plain neutral. We shouldn't be trying to interpolate the source, just paraphrase it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Look up "much" in a thesaurus and tell me if "considerable" or "portion" is a closer in MEANING. Lightbreather (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Why paraphrase such a poorly researched source? Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's good point, we're trying to use a single source with somewhat vague wording to establish a particular point. I don't think its a surprise to anyone that a political organization gets funding from the industry it represent, this isn't really a novel or shocking concept. And that's really all that this wording indicates. At the end of the day, the NRA still represents current and potential gun owners. All levels and facets of any industry need consumers, plain and simple. No surprise here, just really basic economics. Now we're just back to a "quality of writing" issue. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's no surprise that a political org gets funding from an industry that it represents, then let's quit trying to remove this information. On the other hand, if you have a good RS that puts it into a better perspective, perhaps with more details about the breakdown of its funding sources, that would merit due inclusion, too. Lightbreather (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Preserve sources

Scalhotrod removed these from the Further reading section.[62] They might be useful in the future, so I'm preserving them here:

Books

• Bruce, John M.; Wilcox, Clyde, eds. (1998). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. p. 270. ISBN 0-8476-8614-0. OCLC 833118449.
• Carter, Gregg Lee (2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 408. ISBN 1-85109-760-0.
• Goss, Kristin A. (2008). Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton University Press. p. 304. ISBN 9780691138329.
• Utter, Glenn H. (2000). Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx. p. 378. ISBN 1-57356-172-X. OCLC 42072246.

Journals

• Langbein, Laura I.; Lotwis, Mark A. (August 1990). "Political Efficacy of Lobbying and Money: Gun Control in the U.S. House, 1986". Legislative Studies Quarterly. 15 (3). Comparative Legislative Research Center: 413–440. doi:10.2307/439771.
• McGarrity, Joseph P.; Sutter, Daniel (2000). "A Test of the Structure of PAC Contracts: An Analysis of House Gun Control Votes in the 1980s". Southern Economic Journal. 67 (1): 41–63. doi:10.2307/1061612.

News

• Jones, Ashby (2013-09-11). "Gun-Rights Supporters Score Big Win in Colorado Recalls". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2013-09-13.
• Lapidos, Juliet (2013-05-03). "Meet the New N.R.A. President". New York Times (blog). Retrieved 2013-07-19.

The journals and the WSJ report could especially be useful in developing the article re influence, money, lobbying. Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Are the Hickey articles reliable sources?

Per Darknipples's suggestion, I have taken this question to RSN. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So far the comments at RSN and a cited discussion here seem to mirror my recommendation above regarding being cautious and separating the "journalism for fact" from the "opinion for attributed commentary". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

In his RSN post, Faceless Enemy listed three statements from the article that are sourced to Hickey's Jan. 2013 "How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA":

1. Criticism of the NRA and some of its leaders has grown since the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
2. Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.
3. A considerable amount [of the NRA's money] comes from the gun industry....

These statements are all backed up by other sources:

1. A) Story about NRA board member Pete Brownell after Sandy Hook shooting. and B) Story about Chris Christie's criticism of NRA ad after Sandy Hook. (and plenty more can be sourced)

2. A) Combined, sources such as fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties produced about $115 million in 2010, just over half the NRA’s $227.8 million in income, according to the group’s tax return. and B) The National Rifle Association of America, on the other hand, reported $227.8 million in revenues in 2010 — nearly half of which came from member dues ($100.5 million) and program fees ($6.6 million).

3. A) More than 50 firearms-related companies have given at least $14.8 million to the Fairfax, Virginia-based group, according to the NRA’s own list for a donor program that began in 2005. and Sturm Ruger, of Southport, Connecticut, announced a goal in May to sell 1 million firearms by March 31 and donate $1 for each sold to the NRA. The company said last month that it expects to contribute $556,100 by Dec. 31. Remington became a “defender” sponsor of an NRA fundraising program, a designation that involves a $35,000 donation. Springfield, Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson signed on as the “exclusive pistol sponsor” of an NRA TV show; it’s unclear how much the company paid. and B) ... gun manufacturers are major contributors to the NRA. and C) The report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That raises the question of why we should use Hickey at all then, given the concerns raised over at RSN. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Because he says these things most directly, and the RSN does not say/show that he is an unreliable source. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The other (stronger) sources are generally adequate for the statements in question, and the RSN certainly appears to be leaning towards unreliable/weak at best. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

On controversial subjects, two or three reliable sources are better than one, and I disagree with your assessment of the RSN status. Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Solicitations and election spending

With the latest dispute, I decided to re-research political activity and finances sources. This was published yesterday.

• Berlow, Alan (April 21, 2015). "The NRA's brazen shell game with donations: A Yahoo News investigation". Yahoo News. Retrieved April 22, 2015.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

For now, I think we should hold off of including it, per WP:NOTNEWS. If it's just one report and it doesn't turn into anything, then whatever. However, if it gets more widespread coverage in mainstream newspapers/journals, or prompts a government investigation, then we definitely need to add it in. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont think Berlow is a WP:RS if this allegation is single sourced to him alone. He has a raging hard on against gun owners in general and the NRA in particular. WeldNeck (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Could one or more of the more civil editors who contributes to this article please join me in asking WeldNeck NOT to use slurs - and especially sexual slurs - against journalists they don't like? Alan Berlow writes for The Center for Public Integrity, and it's mission isn't just to write about the NRA but about powerful public and private institutions including the NRA. Lightbreather (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in contributing to this article, but I have been monitoring it as an administrator. I find such language to be at best unprofessional, and at worst antagonist toward fellow editors, some of whom may object to such metaphors. WeldNeck, you are not in a high school locker room, you are in a collaborative space with editors of a wide variety of backgrounds and styles of communication. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I calls em likes I sees em. On the point about Berlow's "aggressive" (to use more trigger friendly word) attitude towards the NRA and firearm owners, one look at the titles of his illustrious works at Salon.com makes me more than certain he is not the kind of source we should include in a topic like this. I could care less about his work for a Soros/Ford Foundation outfit like The Center for Public Integrity, doesn't make him any less of a yellow journalist when it comes to gun owners. WeldNeck (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey WeldNeck, personally I have no problem with colorful language and unique or individual self expression. For example, we have an active Editor that goes by the username of Darknipples. But in general its better to be not quite so colorful around lady-folk such as Lightbreather. There are some on the site that have a tendency to be quite easily offended more than most. That said, I welcome your participation. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. WeldNeck (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia editors speak different languages and dialects. While we strive to avoid confusing language in articles, it might improve civility if we were more tolerant in talk page discussions. Assuming good faith might be demonstrated by asking a commenter to clarify the meaning of a phrase rather than taking offense at what might be a misinterpretation. I hope we don't stifle communication by denigrating editors who do not speak our dialect. Thewellman (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• The Guardian has picked up the story: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/nra-illegal-political-spending-lobbying-pac Lightbreather (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we lead the NRA's finances section with its funding from the firearms industry or with its total budget?

Name	Year	Income in Millions	Expenses in Millions
National Rifle Association (NRA)	2011	218.9	231.0
NRA Institute for Legislative Action	n/a	n/a	n/a
NRA Civil Defense Fund	2012	1.6	1.0
NRA Civil Defense Fund	2013	1.3	0.9
NRA Foundation	2012	43.0	29.1
NRA Foundation	2013	41.3	31.4
NRA Freedom Action Foundation	2012	2.1	2.3
NRA Freedom Action Foundation	2013	0.5	0.1
NRA Political Victory Fund	2012	14.4	16.1
NRA Political Victory Fund	2014	21.9	20.7
NRA Special Contribution Fund	2012	3.3	3.1
NRA Special Contribution Fund	2013	4.3	3.6

I feel that leading with funding from the firearms industry is WP:UNDUE. The total NRA budget puts later information in context. If a reader comes in thinking that the NRA's budget is $1m a year, then $15-39m over 6 years is almost 100%. Likewise, if the reader comes in thinking that the NRA's budget is $900m/year, then that amount is a drop in the bucket. We need to lead that section with the total. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this this is that this should be easy to be as straightforward and factual as possible with any contention. There are two things to describe in the Finance section of ANY organization: how money comes in and how money goes out; simple as that. How its stated obviously depends on our sources which we need to be careful about selecting since there are several sources that use this information in the form of critique of the NRA. Those sources are still fine, but the basic data needs to be extracted and stated apart from the editorial. Furthermore, if we are going to include any criticism of where the money comes from or how its used, then it has to be balanced or just not included at all. But any opportunity taken to use the Finance section to bash the organization is just plain POV editing IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I added the accompanying table to the article yesterday[63] - to the top of the Finances section, just as I've done to this discussion for a visual - in large part to address your concern about/preference that the section should start with numbers. This effectively does that, plus makes the rest of the text of the section and its subsections easier to read because the numbers aren't just jumbled all together within the text - where it made it a lot harder to make meaning of. The NRA is a goliath org and its finances aren't easy to understand, especially when you try to compare its overall income/expenses to its numerous subsidiary (so to speak) income/expenses. Lightbreather (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually really like this chart. Aside from the fact that it will a pain to update in the future and most mobile users can't see it, I like its simplicity. My only concern is that its not connected well enough to the text next to it. It needs a caption or something that says the description of the funds/groups/whatever is to the left. The average Reader might view it as a standalone chart not realizing that it needs explanation to fully make sense. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The names of the funds in the table are also the headers for subsections under the Finances section. Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the table is great. However, I don't think it's the first thing the reader will read - the lead sentence of the section is currently "less than half", and then the section hops directly into "gun industry." I'm fine with keeping gun industry funding near the top, despite its relatively low impact, because of its coverage in RS. But we should put the total budget dollar amount in the lead sentence of the section to put all of the other numbers in context. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod and Lightbreather, any objection to re-adding this information as the lead sentence of thr section? Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to the question in the title of this section, the article is about the NRA and following my general methodology of starting with "macro" topics and then moving to "micro" or more detailed ones, it makes the most sense to me to start with its overall Budget and then go into sources along other relevant details taking into consideration that some of the sources are biased and using the information for their own purposes and agendas. That said, it doesn't change the data (money numbers) and names of companies assuming its not questionable like the Hickey stuff has become.

Like I've been saying everywhere, the fact that any lobbying group benefits (financially and otherwise) from the companies (and consumers) within that industry should not be a shock or surprise to anyone. Nor do I understand the drive to present it as such in this article regardless of how many times various groups or media that want headlines or are anti-NRA talk about it. I still like the chart and think that it needs a better caption to explain that the items listed are the sub-section titles. And that's my thoughts on the matter... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My opinion has not changed since my previous comments in this discussion two weeks ago, so yes, I object. (The budget is clearly shown in the table.) Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, your objection is just that it's duplicative. If this is correct, and if you have no other objections, I'd like to add it back in, given that I feel that there are WP:NPOV issues associated with leaving it out. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've got a lot on my plate in my real life and on-wiki, so I'm not putting these in the usual WP:CS1 format that I usually use, but they're just SOME stories about how big corporate/industry money has become to the NRA, and the benefits the industry has reaped in return.

• http://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/NRA-gun-industry-aim-at-same-target-4154421.php
• http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/the-gun-report-may-29-2013/?_r=0
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/06/nra-convention-gun-advocates-include-victims-immigrants-kids.html
• http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/16/nra-bankroll/
• http://www.economist.com/node/21553057
• http://www.wbur.org/npr/167721735/financial-ties-bind-nra-gun-industry
• http://www.fairfieldcitizenonline.com/news/article/Fairfield-firearms-maker-with-1-2M-donated-to-4165809.php
• http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-donors
• http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
• http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Firearms-industry-big-donor-to-NRA-4156261.php

--Lightbreather (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we lead the gun industry contributions paragraph with "A considerable amount [of money] comes from the gun industry"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a small discussion and apparently wasn't formally listed at WP:RFC, so asking that it be formally closed at WP:ANRFC seems overkill, but it was so asked, so here goes. Three people object to the word "considerable", and only one supports it. In terms of policy, "considerable" is pretty clearly a WP:WEASEL word, emotional rather than factual, and means pretty much whatever the writer wants it to mean. In addition, out of the four sources used to cite it, at least the last one seems to object to just such a claim. So consensus and policy agree to remove the term. --GRuban (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

---

I feel this is WP:EDITORIALIZING; the numbers are right there in the next sentence, and speak for themselves. I also feel the word "considerable" may add too much weight to the numbers from the industry - ~$40M over ~5 years to an organization with a budget of ~$200M/year is ~4%. If I made 4% of my money from basket weaving, I'd hesitate to describe that as "considerable", especially in the encyclopedia's voice. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought the phrasing I suggested originally, "a portion", was fine. Using "considerable" in this context is vague when we have numbers and I agree that its unnecessary WP:EDITORIALIZING when simple language would suffice. That said, and I'll say it again, how the reference states it is broad and general, no accurate math can be accomplished without further information which starts us down a slippery slope towards WP:SYNTH. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Name	Year	Income in Millions	Expenses in Millions
National Rifle Association (NRA)	2011	218.9	231.0
NRA Institute for Legislative Action	n/a	n/a	n/a
NRA Civil Defense Fund	2012	1.6	1.0
NRA Civil Defense Fund	2013	1.3	0.9
NRA Foundation	2012	43.0	29.1
NRA Foundation	2013	41.3	31.4
NRA Freedom Action Foundation	2012	2.1	2.3
NRA Freedom Action Foundation	2013	0.5	0.1
NRA Political Victory Fund	2012	14.4	16.1
NRA Political Victory Fund	2014	21.9	20.7
NRA Special Contribution Fund	2012	3.3	3.1
NRA Special Contribution Fund	2013	4.3	3.6

This is how the first two paragraphs of the "Finances" section appear now:

Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.

A considerable amount comes from the gun industry, which the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers." Since 2005, the NRA has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms. ....

How about this instead?

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

Since 2005, the NRA has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms. ....

This way, the sentence that concerns you would not lead the gun industry contribution paragraph, but end the section's brief lead graf about the sources of its income in general. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest deleting "considerable" & simply say "a portion comes from the firearms industry", then "$14.8 mil since 2005", & let the reader figure it out; I'm unclear how "10000 members" makes any difference, in context of NRA (as opposed to firearms industry). My $0.02. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Still WP:UNDUE, and still editorializing. Industry funding should be its own paragraph, not part of the lead. It's not a majority of the funding, or even a plurality, so it doesn't make any sense to put it in the lead paragraph unless we're intentionally trying to imply otherwise. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being moved further down; it's the weight given "considerable" & the disconnect between industry & number of members I object to. (And that's not a huge deal for me, really.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather:, by my count we have 3 people (me, Trekphiler, and Scalhotrod saying "considerable" is no good, and that "portion" is more neutral. Feels like a consensus to me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: Did you have this discussion listed anywhere? Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Didn't see the need. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Considerable" discussion at NPOVN

I have started a discussion at WP:NPOVN re this question: National Rifle Association finances. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we include a fact about the size of the NSSF in the Finances section?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Much as above: small discussion; not formally listed; asked to formally close; overkill; same 3 people object; same 1 supports. In terms of policy, it does seem WP:UNDUE to add a sentence to the NRA article that is about the NSSF, and it does seem WP:SYNTH to justify it by saying that the last sentence mentioned the firearms industry ... which isn't even the same as either the NRA or the NSSF. GRuban (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

---

I feel that including the fact about the membership of the NSSF is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure what the statement adds to the article - they are two separate organizations, and leaving it in there implies that they are somehow connected. We wouldn't drop random facts about NARAL membership in an article about Planned Parenthood either. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No, This article is about the NRA. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The original paragraph said:

Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the industry has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."

Then Faceless Enemy deleted the source for the first two sentences, replacing it with a citation-needed take, and removing the third sentence altogether,[64] leaving this in the original's place:

Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.

Faceless Enemy's edit summary was "Removed poor source, removed undue weight (irrelevant?) statement".

Business Insider is not a "poor source," and what Hickey had written (in part) was this:

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.

While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, MUCH OF IT originating from gun INDUSTRY SOURCES. (Emphasis mine)

A good writer tries to predict her readers' questions. Here are a couple I might have after reading the above: What makes up the gun industry? How big is it? Therefore, I gave the NSSF - the major trade association for the firearms industry - info. Lightbreather (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And a better writer tries to predict their reader's questions and then edit their text accordingly for clarity. But we also have the benefit of Wikilinks, so redundant or unnecessary information can be left out. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the entire sentence is necessary or helpful. Include a link to the firearms industry somewhere in the paragraph and be done with it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

After the discussion above, Discussion of wording of opening paragraph of Finances section, plus some BRD, we ended up with this:

Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.

A considerable amount comes from the gun industry, which the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers." Since 2005....

That was March 10. Then, Faceless Enemy started making the same changes on March 31. Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: again, by my count we have 3 editors (me, Scalhotrod, and Trekphiler) saying this is undue or irrelevant, and one (you) saying it should be left in there. Feels like a consensus to me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: Did you have this discussion listed anywhere? Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Didn't see the need. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Gun industry/NSSF discussion at NPOVN

I have started a discussion at WP:NPOVN re this question: National Rifle Association finances. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how involving a different forum is going to support keeping a factoid made by a completely different organization so that it can be combined with an editorial comment, is going to help. Combining Hickey and the NSSF refs is starting to look more and more like WP:SYNTH. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

We're now up to four editors saying it's synthesis or undue. After correcting the sentence in question to reflect the source it's even more obvious. I'm planning to file a request for closure on this tomorrow. It has been almost a month since the discussion was opened and over a week since the NPOVN discussion was started. [Ping all editors involved so far: Lightbreather, Scalhotrod, Ca2james, Trekphiler] Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a request for closure at AN/RFC. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wording of lead sentence

I have started a discussion at the Everytown for Gun Safety talk page on how to begin that article. The discussion significantly involves this article's lead as well. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The following changes[65][66] were made to Everytown for Gun Safety, based on the discussion cited above, and on the argument that "gun control" is a more neutral way to say "gun violence prevention."

For that reason, I made the following changes to this article.[67][68] The term "gun rights" is more neutral than "the right to keep and bear arms," and the entire lead was sourced to NRA sources. Scalhotrod has reverted the edits.[69]

The edits that were reverted were an improvement to the lead, just as the edits at Everytown for Gun Safety were improvements - born of discussion. I propose that we restore those improvements. Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• The term gun rights seems ambiguous, and less neutral than civil rights; since constitutional language uses the term arms. In the context of gay rights or equal rights, gun rights would seem to imply guns have rights; and despite rulings that corporations are people, similar status has yet to be applied to firearms. Thewellman (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• The term "gun rights" Is used by the preponderance of neutral V, RS. Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

♠I'm not at all sure "gun control" is more neutral than "gun violence reduction", since gun control commonly targets law-abiding citizens & control of violence (one presumes) would target criminal activity.

♠As for "gun rights", I'm not sure that's exactly neutral, either; "gun owner's rights" seems more like it. (Yes, I know, that's not a term found hardly anywhere...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Civil rights" is too ambiguous too - depending on who you ask, it could encompass everything from voting rights to free speech to gun rights to...well, you name it. We definitely need to be specific that the NRA is (mostly) about RKBA, rather than, say, about privacy rights or voting rights (though of course when those touch on gun rights they definitely care). Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

For now, if that's the only thing holding us up, can we go with "gun rights"? I'd like to remove the quotes from both this article and the Everytown article - the more I look at them, the more they feel like puffery. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to the term gun rights. The whole "gun violence" thing is a dodge by gun control groups who realized that changing gun control (somethign people opposed) to preventing "gun violence" was a good PR move because who would be against reducing violence? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Suggestion - How about... "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization founded in 1871 in New York by journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate to promote marksmanship within the United States military. Since then the organization has gone through several transformations as well as expanded its purpose and goals." and then we simply describe the organization from there? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. The lead paragraph, especially the lead sentence, should be about what the NRA is and does, not what it was and did:

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I like Scalhotrod's suggestion. Since this is an encyclopedia, what the NRA was and did is still as important as what it is and does. We should be taking a historic view in the opening line of the lead, rather than a present day view. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I also like Scalhotrod's proposal. Ignoring the history in the lead smacks of recentism. As for "gun rights", while I'm not thrilled with it, I could live with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's my take on using "gun rights", "gun control" or any of the buzz phrases in the Lead. It smacks of POV, from either side. This is an organization with over a 140 year history. Focusing on the last few years, or decades for that matter, in the Lead and especially the first sentence is just lousy writing IMO in addition a poor representation of the subject. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the preponderance of WP:V, reliable WP:SECONDARY sources use "gun control" and "gun rights." Here are a few books:

• Carter, Gregg Lee, ed. (2012). "National Rifle Association (NRA)". Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 616–620. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. Retrieved 2014-06-06. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the nation's largest, oldest, and most politically powerful interest group that opposes gun laws and favors gun rights. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Carter, Greg Lee (2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 285. ISBN 9781851097609. Almost all of [the groups listed] are readily classifiable as either advocating a 'gun control' or a 'gun rights' position.
• Knox, Neal (2009). Knox, Christopher (ed.). Neal Knox: The Gun Rights War. MacFarlane Press. p. 159. One of the few advantages - possibly the only advantage - that supporters of gun rights hold is the fact that there are more one-issue voters on the pro-gun side than on the anti-gun side.
• Patterson, Samuel C.; Eakins, Keith R. (1998). "Congress and Gun Control". In Bruce, John M.; Wilcox, Clyde (eds.). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. OCLC 833118449. Retrieved 2014-04-08. During the gun control legislation battles of the 1960s, the NRA, although it had no registered lobbyists, was the most powerful gun rights organization. It still enjoys this distinction, although it has undergone significant change. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Utter, Glenn H. Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. Grey House. ISBN 9781592376728.
• Wellford, Charles F; Pepper, John V; Petrie, Carol V, eds. (2013) [Print ed. 2005]. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Electronic ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. p. 283. ISBN 0-309-54640-0. Another commentator pointed out, however, that a significant number of the articles supporting the individual right model published between 1970 and 1989 were written by lawyers who had either been employed by or who represented gun rights organizations, including the NRA.

Note especially that first one - the latest edition of Guns in American Society. The quote I gave is the lead sentence of that encyclopedia's entry for the National Rifle Association. It is also worth noting that it doesn't mention the NRA's early history until after two long paragraphs about its organizational make-up and programs, and especially its "enduring political clout." Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Use of the term gun rights in sources is of secondary importance to the allegedly improved neutrality of the term in comparison to the right to keep and bear arms. The United States Bill of Rights from which the allegedly non-neutral term originates, identifies only five rights in its ten amendments: The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the 1st amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures in the 4th amendment, the right to a speedy and public trial in the 6th amendment, and the right of trial by jury in the 7th amendment. A majority of sources paraphrasing the rights enumerated by the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States use the term right to keep and bear arms in preference to gun rights. Thewellman (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• That's not an entirely accurate summary. For example, the 6th, through the use of commas, provides a list of enumerated rights, including the right to confront witnesses, to be informed of charges, assistance of counsel etc. additionally, the BoR recognizes the some rights pre-exist.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the terms are interchangeable. "Gun rights" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are different, in that RKBA encompasses (or has encompassed) everything from crossbows to swords to firearms. "Gun rights" only covers guns. "Gun violence prevention" is also broader than "gun control". There are some programs like this one (funded by Bloomberg) that have explicitly been designed to reduce murders (and thus can be called "GVP"), but are not gun control. (Another point of contention is that gun rights advocates argue that gun control doesn't prevent gun violence, so we need to be careful how we phrase things in the encyclopedia's voice. GVP is usually used as a euphemism for GC.) Yeesh. The NRA is best known (in secondary sources) for its advocacy of gun rights though, so I don't see a huge issue with leading with that here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, most articles I've seen start with the organization's current status, rather than its history (e.g. Catholic Church). Do you have examples of other articles that start with the history of an org? Is there a clear guideline in WP policy (or MOS or whatever) that addresses this? Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Catholic Church example is a good one, but I'd like to point out several key distinctions. First off, its an old enough institution that a separate History of the Catholic Church article exists, which makes the main article in reality The current status of the Catholic Church or maybe A summary of the Catholic Church, this is not the case for the NRA. We have a single article that is trying to address its entire history along with its cumulative activities, so the Lead needs to reflect that. Second, with all of the various controversy involving the Church, none of it mentioned until the last paragraph. Third, it's Lead 1st sentence is fairly generic simply stating that its the largest organization of its type and how many members it has. I would be fine with something similar, "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is a nonprofit organization with 5 million members." But quite frankly, that seems too simplistic and not terribly descriptive or informative.

Furthermore, if we take a clinical look at what they do today, its a variety of things that range from publishing and multi-media (television, internet, etc.) to training and certification programs to historical preservation along with lobbying and other political activities. So to describe the organization in the 1st sentence using any kind of phrase that includes "gun control", gun rights", or the like is just bad writing and purposely ignoring significant parts of the article, hence my original suggestion for the Lead first sentence. At the very least, I don't see why the first sentence can't just be generically descriptive. Maybe something like...

"The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is a nonprofit organization that primarily serves as an advocate for firearm related issues and activities. Originally founded in 1871 in New York by journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate to promote marksmanship within the United States military, the organization has gone through several transformations as well as expanded its purpose and goals. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it has become one of the largest and most influential lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. as well as a large, multi-title magazine publisher; an advocate for hunters and outdoors-people, and a preservationist of hunting lands; and one of the largest firearm training and certification program operators in the U.S."

That said, I will try to find other examples, but given this list (Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations) it does not seem difficult to find an article with a Lead first sentence like I've described. By the way, I'm advocating for a rewrite of the ENTIRE WP:Lead, not just the 1st sentence. I think that Policy is fairly clear, but IMO to adhere to it properly in this case Editor's need, to quote the WP:Lead page, a specialized understanding of the subject in order to write it in a NPOV manner that a non-specialist will understand. This is something beyond what a magazine subscription or occasional mailing will provide. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the mission statement stuff. Better than nothing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Best and most reputable authoritative sources use "gun rights"

Per WP:NPOV Good research, we're supposed to use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Here are six and they all use the term "gun rights" to describe the NRA's primary focus.

• Carter, Gregg Lee, ed. (2012). "National Rifle Association (NRA)". Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 616–620. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. Retrieved 2014-06-06. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the nation's largest, oldest, and most politically powerful interest group that opposes gun laws and favors gun rights. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Carter, Greg Lee (2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 285. ISBN 9781851097609. Almost all of [the groups listed] are readily classifiable as either advocating a 'gun control' or a 'gun rights' position.
• Knox, Neal (2009). Knox, Christopher (ed.). Neal Knox: The Gun Rights War. MacFarlane Press. p. 159. One of the few advantages - possibly the only advantage - that supporters of gun rights hold is the fact that there are more one-issue voters on the pro-gun side than on the anti-gun side.
• Patterson, Samuel C.; Eakins, Keith R. (1998). "Congress and Gun Control". In Bruce, John M.; Wilcox, Clyde (eds.). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. OCLC 833118449. Retrieved 2014-04-08. During the gun control legislation battles of the 1960s, the NRA, although it had no registered lobbyists, was the most powerful gun rights organization. It still enjoys this distinction, although it has undergone significant change. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Utter, Glenn H. Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. Grey House. ISBN 9781592376728.
• Wellford, Charles F; Pepper, John V; Petrie, Carol V, eds. (2013) [Print ed. 2005]. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Electronic ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. p. 283. ISBN 0-309-54640-0. Another commentator pointed out, however, that a significant number of the articles supporting the individual right model published between 1970 and 1989 were written by lawyers who had either been employed by or who represented gun rights organizations, including the NRA.

As I said over two weeks ago, note especially that first source - the latest (2012) edition of Guns in American Society. The quote given is the lead sentence of that encyclopedia's entry for the National Rifle Association. It is also worth noting that it doesn't mention the NRA's early history until after two long paragraphs about its organizational make-up and programs, and especially its "enduring political clout."

Although several editors have expressed their opinions here, no-one has given stronger reputable authoritative sources. (Actually, no-one has given any.) Per the preponderance of best-quality WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS the lead sentence should use the term "gun rights" and not the POV "right to keep and bear arms." Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The historic significance of the right to keep and bear arms is beyond contestation in the United States. Guns do not have rights; people do. The article being linked to is "Right to keep and bear arms in the United States." It is entirely appropriate to describe that link as such, unless someone is actively trying to push specific wording that would dilute it. The source in place for that sentence in the lede does not mention the phrase "gun rights" - yet it does refer to the Constitutional right. The NRA refers to their defense of the Second Amendment as part of their history. It would be disengenous to use the term "gun rights" in the first sentence of the article. Scr★pIron^IV 17:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't about the U.S. Bill of Rights, it's about an organization that is known primarily for its gun-rights politics. There are sources within the article that support calling the NRA a gun-rights organization. One of these was used in a previous gun-rights lead. I have restored it, plus the six sources given above. Lightbreather (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, regarding this edit - [70] - you say you've provided sources. Where are these sources you've provided that are better than the half-dozen I provided? Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather Your sources do not refute the original claim. Your edit removed clarity, and removed a Wikilink. Why is vague wording, and loss of the wikilink, preferable here? Unless, of course, there is something which underlies the choice of wording? You appear to be saying the same thing that I am, but offering less actual information. Scr★pIron^IV 20:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources I gave support the use of "gun rights." I am asking you to provide sources that support use of "right to keep and bear arms" over the authorities' - Carter, Knox, Patterson, Utter, and Wellford - use of "gun rights" to describe what the NRA is about.

As for wikilinking to the (POV) right to keep and bear arms article, that doesn't have to happen in the lead sentence. It can be put elsewhere, when we describe how the NRA likes to describe its mission. Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

When describing any organization, their mission is their purpose and focus. As for "gun rights," that doesn't have to happen in the lead sentence. It can be put elsewhere, when we describe how others like to describe the NRA's mission. Scr★pIron^IV 21:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to "Right to keep and bear arms in the United States" to the section where it talks about the NRA's mission. Lightbreather (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015

External Link: www.NRANews.com, In-Depth News & Views on Firearm-Related Issues From the National Rifle Association NRA 2105 (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: that seems like the kind of spam the protection was put on this article to prevent. Bazj (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - a direct link is available from the homepage of the NRA's official web-site.
"Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence" - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article

This article in the Guardian gives background on the internal politics of the NRA:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/23/national-rifle-association-gun-lobby-wayne-lapierre
The NRA didn't tolerate dissent well': how the gun lobby stays on-message
Members hoping to change the National Rifle Association from within face the entrenched power of Wayne LaPierre and the PR firm that wields huge influence
Chris McGreal in Portland, Oregon
23 October 2015
...
“I keep hearing that there are people in the NRA who want gun control and I have friends that are NRA members who own guns and want gun control. So why not get people to join the NRA and change it from within?”
For a start, only life members and those who have been in the NRA for five years or more can vote in its elections.
The NRA claims to be a grassroots organisation driven by the popular will of its 4 million-plus members. But real power lies in the hands of a few executives, a shadowy committee which tightly controls elections to the NRA’s board of directors and a public relations company that for three decades has driven the organisation’s uncompromising opposition to any form of gun control.
NRA officials and members who challenge this power structure say they have been driven out or marginalised.
The face of the NRA is Wayne LaPierre, its executive vice-president for the past 24 years who sharply divides America with his unyielding defence of gun rights even in the aftermath of tragedies such as the massacre of 20 children at Sandy Hook elementary school three years ago. He is surrounded by a clutch of key executives with budgets of tens of millions of dollars to run political campaigns, strong-arm Congress and influence elections.
LaPierre is also supported by gun makers, who help give the NRA its financial clout with large donations and hold seats on the organisation’s board of directors.
The axis of power at the top of the NRA is shored up by an internal electoral structure that has had the effect of stalling change. Candidates for the board must be approved by a nine-member “nominations committee”. The committee is appointed by the NRA’s president in consultation with LaPierre and his executives.
Each year it strikes down dozens of potential contenders to put fewer than 30 names on the ballot for the 25 seats up for election each year. The 75 board members serve a three-year term. A 76th is appointed annually by popular vote at the national conference.
--Nbauman (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

please add the definition to this article. thx.

Can someone who is knowledgeable please go here and add the definition. thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state#definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

Update Annual Revenue, it rose by 30% (!!): 2013: $347,968,789 http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530116130/530116130_201312_990O.pdf Gentle (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

MIssion statement

Is the mission statement here allowed per WP:MISSION? Felsic2 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Since sourced mission statements are deleted from comparable articles I deleted it from here too. Felsic2 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, I've opened a discussion about the issue here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Against gun violence

Do we have any sources which say the NRA is against gun violence? Felsic2 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends. "against gun violence" is often a euphamism for gun control. However, taken at face value, they have notable support for gun handling safety and training, safe storage, children's safety, and support for increased integration of mental health records in background checks. All of that would be covered under "gun violence". Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be. But do any sources directly say that the NRA is against gun violence? In re: the issues listed above, they seem to only support voluntary measures. Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(This isn't a forum discussion - it relates to how we describe various groups and their missions.) Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think that the answer to this question would require adding or removing some particular bit of text/category/etc it might be helpful to lay out the hypothetical change, to help better understand the kind of source/statement you are looking for. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The NRA would probably refuse to use the term "gun violence". Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-partisan

What's the standard for labelling or categorizing a group as "non-partisan"? See Talk:American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association#Non-partisan. Whatever it is, le'ts be consistent. (And no, I'm not trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.)Felsic2 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The 501(c)(3) part of the NRA is nonpartisan; the 501(c)(4) part of the NRA is allowed to be partisan, though I believe they have endorsed candidates from both parties (notably I think they endorsed Harry Reid). Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's OK to label or categorize a group as non-partisan if their tax status justifies it? Is there any objection to adding the same category to American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association as we apply to the National Rifle Association? Felsic2 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe my objection was that AHSA is/was a 501c4, not a 501c3. I still have that objection, though I'm not sure I like "nonpartisan" anywhere; it has a positive connotation of reasonableness, obectivity, non-bias, and neutrality, which we shouldn't be making in the encyclopaedia's voice. Of course, if we add/remove it from the NRA page, we should be consistent about it for all similar organizations, which could be a mammoth undertaking that would ruffle some feathers. This probably isn't the place to hammer out the entire "nonpartisan" question, though unfortunately it looks like both the "nonpartisanism" and "nonpartisanism in the United States" pages are relatively inactive. Any ideas on where to raise the discussion? Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of the NRA is 501c4. Only the NRA Foundation is 501c3. See National_Rifle_Association#Organizational_structure_and_finances. As I wrote a year ago, be consistent. If you want to delete the designation from some groups and keep it for others then there needs to be a reason. Felsic2 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Civil_rights_organization category

Talk:National_Rifle_Association/Archive_2#Civil_rights_organization The consensus in that discussion, in February 2015, was to not include [[[Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States]. In December 2015 it was added without any discussion.[71] I'm going to delete it pending a new consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A consensus produced where the two main participants in the discussion are both topic and site banned doesn't hold a lot of weight. The NRA is described in civil rights/liberties terms by reliable sources, even by their detractors. [72][73][74] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I was there too. I am not site-banned. Come up with a fresh consensus, taking the previous discussion into consideration. You talk about wasting time - relitigating this kinda stuff over and over is a real waste of time. Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So now you're just edit warring for something without consensus? Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have provided 3 left leaning reliable sources describing the NRA as a civil rights/liberties org. Yes you were there too. one person does not make a consensus. Rather than scattering this everywhere seriously, start an RFC. Put two questions in it. "In general, should gun control advocacy groups be categorized as CRO"s. "In general, should gun rights groups be cated as CROS". Lets settle it with an actual wide consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Source #1: 0 Surprising Facts About the NRA That You Never Hear By Jack Lee January 23, 2013 Here are other articles by Jack Lee: [75]

• Do Gun Control Advocates Even Know What They Want to Ban?
• Background Checks Aren't the Best Answer in the Gun Control Debate
• 7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths
• 7 Reasons Why An Assault Weapons Ban Will Fail to Reduce Violent Crime
• How CNN's Piers Morgan and Others Are Brainwashing Us to Fear Guns

I see nothing liberal or even neutral about that source.

Source #2 NRA Wastes No Time Promoting Bogus Gun Claims Against SCOTUS Nominee Merrick Garland The only mention of cvili liberties is in the tags:

• Posted in: Guns, Justice & Civil Liberties, Nominations & Appointments, The Judiciary
• Stories/Interests: Guns, Judicial Crisis Network, Merrick Garland, National Rifle Association, Supreme Court Nominations

Source #3 Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties I don't see nothing about "civil liberties" in the NRA entry. The Klan has an entry too, but that doesn't make them a civil liberties group.

None of those sources are much good for a contentious category. Felsic2 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a better source I'll delete it, because of the previous consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• [76] "As a result, the NRA is older than the NAACP but did not engage in civil rights activities until after the formation of the NAACP."
• By Gabriell Giffords!! [77]
• [78]
• [79]
• "Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties" [80]

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• The "Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties" looks reasonable. Is it a reliable source for gun politics issues? They say a lot about th NRA which isn't in the article currently,
• Quote the text from the Giffords book.
• "National Association of the Deaf"? Really? That's the best you can do?

In the future, please give us the quote instead of just a google link. Thes sources don't all say what you think they do.

Now, can you please address the other issues raised when the last consensus was formed? Felsic2 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately google books doesn't allow copy/paste, or I would have. Could you be more specific as to which issue you think needs to be addressed? The discussion there seemed to focus on the "the NRA says it is" issue. But here we have 3rd parties saying so, which is an entirely different issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What does Giffords, who you're citing, say about the NRA and civil liberties? Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

the encyclopedias are not attributing it to the NRA. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What does Giffords, who you're citing, say about the NRA and civil liberties? Or was that just a mistake to waste my time? Felsic2 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No answer? Is that because Giffords doesn't say what you said she said? That's why I ask for quotations instead of just links. Felsic2 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• [81] 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.
• [82] "The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today."
• [83] The NRA is a civil liberties organization, like the ACLU.
• The Urban Institute [[IS[84] s. 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.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Do they say what you think this time? You complain about me wasitnig time then present numerous useless links. If you think these sources are adequate then add them to the article. You still haven't addressed the issues rqaised in the previous discussion. Please read it and reply. Then maybe we can come to a consensus over this contentious categorization. Felsic2 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify which issue you were referring to, but you have not done so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion? Maybe I should copy it out of the archive. Felsic2 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

maybe you should say what you think is still an issue The primary issue I see from that disucssion is that it was the NRA's wording. I have provided multiple reliable sources using the wording in their own voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a long discussion. A couple of words from you would help to clarify what else you think needs addressing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a long discussion which came to a consensus. Now you guys want to ignore that consensus without even referring back to any of the topics we've already agreed upon. Gaijin42 started the day by chastising me for wasting his time correcting cited text. A much bigger waste of time is relitigating issues that have already been resolved. Felsic2 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A consensus of 3, 2 of whom are site and topic banned. The issue I see in that discussion for the purposes of categorization is that it is the NRA's voice. I have provided multiple reliable sources using their own voice. NYT (2x), Slate, and The Urban institute. I have provided the specific quotes. I do not see another issue there relevant to categorization (some that would apply to how it is attributed/stated in the body, but from where I sit those are also dealt with by the 4 sources linked). Either state another objection or stop stonewalling. You have been asked multiple times to state an issue. Drmies could I ask for your opinion on the matter of how to proceed? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Gaijin, I'm not sure what you're asking me, or what's being asked in the first place. Are we talking about the text? That was discussed in the previous discussion and it seems fair, since it places the statement in the context of "NRA claims". If it's the categories, then there's a few issues, since the first two links you gave in that set of four are to opinion pieces. They're opinion pieces by fairly important people, but they are not independent, it seems to me. The Slate article is different, but that article really points out the difference between the NRA and other organizations, and deciding that "Slate calls the NRA a civil rights organization" is a misreading, I think, given how much irony drips from that article. I have not reviewed the last source. The "category" part of that earlier discussion is somewhat inconclusive but I suppose it's 2 to 1, or maybe 1 1/2, against categorizing it as such an organization. If this is really a reason to go to war, have a new RfC, and maybe this time the participants will get to stick around.

  BTW, Gaijin, I'm not terrifically pleased with your revert, esp. since it restores a what I consider to be disruptive edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=694484526&oldid=694437029 this one), brought to us totally out of the blue, without explanation or even edit summary, by Jkp1187, an edit which should have been reverted on the spot. So like Lightbreather was courteous enough to revert some of her own edits during that earlier discussion, perhaps you should follow suit. After all, there had been some stability on that issue, I think. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Thanks for the response. While obviously its probably not the ringing endorsement I was hoping for, it does at least raise some issues that can actually be discussed. Regarding the revert, the article was categorized as a CRO for the majority of its life. [85] Due to my topic ban, I was not present for the discussion, so from my perspective the change was Felsic removing a long standing cat. I turn out to be wrong in what the short term status quo, but I was not trying to be naughty, I was reverting what I interpreted to be a bold change by Felsic. You raise a very solid point on the slate article. However, two notable opinions in the NYT, plus the being listed in multiple civil rights encyclopedias seems to be a fairly strong bit of remaining evidence. In any case, there seems to be some desire for an RFC below, so I guess that is how it will ultimately be resolved. @Niteshift36, Thewellman, and Springee: I have started an RFC. I did not move your comments below into it.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support listing it as a civil right organization. I guess the [86] NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund doesn't hurt the position. And did the old discussion really reach a consensus?Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support as civil rights organization. It's narrow in scope but certainly fighting for one of the amendments that constitutes the Bill of Rights would fit the definition. Springee (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support listing NRA as a civil rights organization. Thewellman (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

United States Shooting Team

Instigated on by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, the NRA mandated the establishment of National Teams and National Development Teams, a national coaching staff, year-round training programs, and a main training site for Olympic shooting sports. In 1992, USA Shooting replaced the NRA as the National governing body for Olympic shooting.

Is that really the whole story? Citizendium has this text:

The NRA stepped down as the governing body for the Olympic sport of shooting in 1994 after a multi-year battle with representatives from the United States Shooting Team. A panel from the United States Olympic Committee recommended the NRA’s authority be revoked, citing federal law. Team representatives accused the NRA of using its affiliation with the Olympic team to further its own goals.

I gotta find the sources, but the entry here looks like a whitewash. Felsic2 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source.[87] Any good reason to sweep this under the rug? Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"In a list of 14 complaints filed with the U.S.O.C. last September, it was charged that the N.R.A. displayed an attitude of "contempt" toward the I.C.C.'s governing responsibilities, showed a lack of meaningful involvement in coaching and Junior Olympic programs, interfered with the I.C.C.'s ability to raise funds independently, held improper control over the I.C.C.'s staffing and budget matters, inappropriately used the Olympic symbols and even controlled the governing body's authority to call a meeting." Sounds like a pretty standard bureaucratic turf war. A few more sources [88] [89] I think we could expand this, but drop the WP:ABF on "whitewash" and "sweeping under the rug" please. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha hah ha hha ahahhha. Sorry, I can't type - I'm laughing too hard. Felsic2 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sweeping under rug? Whitewash? Paranoid much? More than likely, someone didn't follow up. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just when I'd stopped laughing... Yeah, sure, it's just an accident that negative material is left out. Nobody's fault. Like when a gun accidentally goes off and kills someone sleeping in another room. Just happened. Felsic2 (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There goes my hope that your response would be constructive. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

My "helpful response" will be thanking you, or any editor, for providing an NPOV summary of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felsic2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again, nothing productive from you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, so I'll have to do the work. Then you, or someone, will revert me. yeah yeah, the usual routine. Felsic2 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)