Talk:National Rifle Association

Ackerman McQueen

There isn't one mention of Ackerman McQueen in this article. It's all over the news.[1][2][3] Given they've worked together since the 1980s, I don't think WP:RECENTISM applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently we know there is a lawsuit but little else. What would we say about it that would be relevant in a decade or more? I'm not saying this shouldn't be in the article in the long term but currently it's a bit of noise but we have no idea if it will be significant in the end. I would say RECENTISM applies. Springee (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Springee, well we can detail their longstanding relationship, and then cover the lawsuit. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I see it's already been included. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:, I saw your MelanieN's changes. No objection here. Springee (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

North-LaPierre power struggle

@Soibangla:, as an experienced editor you should know that the lead is meant to be a summary of the body. To claim that an internal power stuggle of unknown impact or outcome should be in the lead of a 140 year old organization is very quetionable. You have plenty of time to add and get community consensus on what ever body content you feel should be added but currently you are violating WP:LEAD, which is part of the MOS guideline. We also need to keep RECENT in mind here. Springee (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Off-Topic PackMecEng (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given your editing history, it should come as no surprise that I vehemently disagree with virtually everything you say. soibangla (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC) OK, we still have to follow policies and guidelines. Springee (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Nope, you are well known for attempted intimidation, like the trash you just put on my Talk page. Keep it up. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, I didn't find the previous DS notice so that was a mistake on my part and I apologized. I posted it to your page because your comment above isn't civil. To be honest I didn't recognize you from our previous interactions. Regardless of our previous disagreements on content, I trust you agree that the lead is a summary of the body. This general content was discussed recently and left out due to concerns of RECENT. More news had come out but we still don't have anything that would be lead worthy and you started with edits to the lead, not the body. I'm happy to work with you on this but let's follow good editing practices. Springee (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Springee and Soibangla: Let’s not edit war over whether the recent events at the convention belong in the lead or not. (I don’t have to warn longtime editors like you two about edit warring, do I? or about civil discussion with each other?) This material is in the body (apparently Soibangla and I edit-conflicted over adding it). Whether it is appropriate for the lead or not: I would say not, at least not yet. If this dissension goes on to cause major changes in the way the NRA works then of course it should. But IMO there is an excellent chance this will be taken out of public view and papered over, and will not prove to have a major impact in the 150-year lifespan of this organization. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Insurgents Seek to Oust Wayne LaPierre in N.R.A. Power Struggle was on the front page of yesterday's NYT; your addition to the "1934 to present" section is the largest paragraph, and the latest entry since 1997, so this is a significant development; excellent chance this...will not prove to have a major impact in the 150-year lifespan of this organization is highly debatable, a close reading of news over the past several months suggests they are in the midst of an existential crisis on multiple fronts. As another editor previously noted, it wasn't until your edit that Ackerman McQueen was even mentioned in the article, although their role with the NRA has been extensively reported in recent months, indicating growing turmoil inside the NRA. I maintain it warrants at least a mention in the lede, but that's all I have to say about this. soibangla (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It is possible this will create a major shift in the NRA. However, consider that the 1977 "Cincinnati Revolution" described in the history section doesn't make it to the lead. Now look at what the Cincinnati Revolution did. That was the point when the NRA changed from an organization focused more on hunting, and shooting etc to a focus on gun rights.[[4]][[5]] It's quite possible that without that change the NRA wouldn't be the controversial organization we discuss today. Yet that change, despite being clearly a turning point for the organization, isn't in the lead. This is why I suggest that adding the material to the lead is UNDUE. While RECENT is a concern, I agree with those, including you, who feel there is enough weight for inclusion but not in the lead, at least not until it has a bigger impact that things like the Cincinnati Revolt. Springee (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Give it a little time. If this week's developments profoundly change the organization, we can put them in the lead then. At this point we don't know how important, or unimportant, this part of the history is. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Springee, I think you made a strong argument for including the Cincinnati Revolt in the lead.– Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't been thinking along those lines but I could see it. The first two intro paragraphs could be combined. The second paragragh could be a high level history stating what the organization was started to do and was largely the focus through the 1970s. Then it could summarize the shift towards gun rights. That would actually tie nicely with the last paragraph that talks about the lobbying and related efforts. MelanieN, I agree it might profoundly change the organization but until we know we shouldn't put the information in the lead. In my opinion, it would need to be a bigger change than the 1977 change to make it to the lead. Springee (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Springee and Muboshgu: - I also concur that the 1977 change is significant enough for the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 12:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, based on the feedback here I'm think we have consensus to add this to the lead. I would propose we start by expanding the 1977 revolt content in the body. Consider the volume we have on the Russia investigations as compared to the 1977 revolt. To that end I suggest we try to find some additional sources/information for the body and possibly turn the revolt into a dedicated (sub)subsection. It looks like much of the content is there but could use more weight. With that in place I think it will be easier to write a good paragraph for the lead. BTW, so long as we are talking about the lead I do think the NRA's training, education etc programs should be mentioned.

While the public view of the NRA is largely focused on politics, in terms of numbers of participants etc much of it's actual efforts is still the non-controversial programs. In my head such in formation would be a short second paragraph in the intro. The current first two would be combined. With such a change the intro would be structured like this: 1st paragraph discussing the highest level facts (what it is, age, mission etc). 2nd paragraph (the bulk of the work the organization does). This gets it out of the way to dive into the more controversial stuff. This is similar to how the Ford Pinto article was structured. In that article the "mundane" car stuff was covered first and the second half of the intro (and article) were all about the fires with no jumping back to no fire stuff at the end. 3rd paragraph is the literal and historical transition to politics. Literal as the text of the article starts talking about it and historical as it talks about when the organization became more political. Final paragraph is talking about the organizations lobbying/political aspects so basically what it already is. Springee (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think MelanieN's changes are great. There's no indication it's due for the lead at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This has a place in the body, I am not sure it is significant enough to have a place in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor changes

March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C. on March 24, 2018

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[6] Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

not seeing why the change needs to be made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks reasonable User:Tobby72. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Object to adding image. It's UNDUE in this article. Springee (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James, you should know better than to just revert without discussing first. Springee (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah actually User:Springee it was you who have been reverting without discussion. With you just joining the discussion now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I supported the previous reversion. That made it 2:1 against thus the ONUS is on those who wish to include. Rather than justify the restoration you restored without discussion. Just saying "looks reasonable" isn't a justification when two other editors have said no. At that point it's on those who wish to include to start the discussion (or add to it) and attempt to address concerns. You are a seasoned editor, you shouldn't be missing things like this. Springee (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No actually you did not join this discussion until now and instead simple reverted without writing anything here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Did you write anything here before reverting two editors? Did you bother to ask what the objections were? "Looks reasonable" is hardly a compelling argument for a change after objections. Springee (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The image contains no content mentioning, describing, naming, displaying, discussing, presenting, or criticizing directly the NRA. What is the rationale for adding it to this article, about the National Rifle Association, other than perhaps personal feelings about the organization? Anastrophe (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

An "Abolish the NRA" sign being carried during a March For Our Lives in Washington DC

Yes agree a picture of a "March of Our Lives" with an NRA related signs would be more on topic. Found and added one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would still object as UNDUE. As has been said a number of times, this is a near century and a half old organization. We don't need to give that much space to a recent protest. Springee (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Doc, please wait for others to review your proposed change before adding the image. It's clear we are (or should be) in the discuss part of this cycle and past BOLD. Springee (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There is already a photo from a 'March on the NRA' protest, which is actually relevant. Generalized anti-NRA signs are a dime a dozen. WP:UNDUE within the scope of this article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• The new photo [7] seems appropriate to me. Although a single protest may be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it is representative of the "Public Opinion and Image" and "Criticism" sections which make up a significant part of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I missed that that one was added when I removed the other one. My UNDUE concerns apply there as well. First, while I agree that there are general anti-NRA messages when gun control marches happen, there are also a lot of examples of people supporting the NRA. We don't have those pictures included. Also, that picture is not about the public opinion of the organization rather of a specific march. If the section is about public opinion why discuss a particular gun control march? So my view is either balance it with a pro-NRA image or remove it. Springee (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless we have a way to photograph the public's opinion of an organization, any image is going to come from a specific event that represents the overall concept. And if you know of a pro-NRA image that you think should be included, please do so or post it here for discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better to avoid the issue entirely. Consider this, what if we don't have a "NRA supporting" image that we can use? For example, images of people defending their 2nd A rights might be appropriate here [[8]] but do we have any acceptable pictures in our archives? So if we don't have one in the archive then we can't balance the negative image. Better to simply not include it to avoid balance issues. Springee (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have found some pro-NRA images: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

None of those photos are 'pro-NRA'. Anastrophe (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, those aren't "pro-NRA" rather gun rights pictures. One shows a person in an NRA hat but that's it. Again, this presents a NPOV issue. The pictures also aren't important to conveying the information in the section. At this point I think we don't have a consensus to include the new pictures. Springee (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is about the image added (not any other, that is a different issue), and no I do not see what it added (but my objection was not really to the image, but the fact the edit also include textual changes that was not made clear in the edit summery.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not really a fan of either picture for the section in question. Looks more like something that would violate NPOV. PackMecEng (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Doc James, there is no consensus for either image [[16]]. The discussion regarding the image in the survey section was discussed above. I argued that it was UNDUE because it presents a negative view without a counterbalancing positive view. At the same time the image does not enhance the text/subject of the material in the section. Tobby72 suggested some images that could be used to balance the presentation but as Anastrophe noted, none were "pro-NRA". We simply don't have consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The "National March on the NRA" in August 2018

Not seeing were this image is being discussed? Looks fairly appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed just a few lines above. Several pictures were suggested to balance this one. No consensus for a balancing picture was found. "Looks fairly appropriate" is not MOS. Please explain why you think it's NPOV and why it enhances the section where it was added. That section starts by showing the NRA has significant support in the general public. So given the text how is a single, highly negative image appropriate? What policy/guideline supports inclusion? Where is the consensus for inclusion? This isn't a long time stable image so consensus for inclusion is needed. Springee (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For reference here is more recent polling data which puts the NRA at just over 50% favorable [[17]]. How do we justify using only a negative image in that section? Are you willing to say that is per MOS? Springee (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, if you can't come up with a policy or guideline based reason for keeping the image then don't restore it. This is a new image and there isn't consensus for inclusion. ONUS is on you for inclusion. Springee (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the section on public opinion based on the following reasons.

• No consensus for inclusion. This was a newly added image thus onus is on those wishing to include.
• The image does not align with the text. Per MOS:IRELEV the image should help illustrate the concept of the section, it should not be decorative. The section is presenting poling information that is largely balanced between support and opposition to the NRA (leaning somewhat in favor of support). The image is clearly negative only and is from an rally associated with the 2018 March for Life. This isn't a good image to illustrate the poling data.
• The image is UNDUE. If we take this image to illustrate public mood or perception of the NRA (which is somewhat OR if we do) then the image should be balanced or even with the message of the text. The text is not 100% negative on the NRA so why include a 100% negative image in the section. As mentioned above the UNDUE aspect could be balanced with a "pro-NRA" image but we still would have the MOS problem.

For these reasons I have removed the image. If this is seen as a problem I think the next step is a NPOVN discussion. Springee (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning and am not seeing consensus for its removal. You could try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

So what is your counter argument? WP:Consensus says we need to try to address all legitimate concerns. Failing to do so or an inability to provide a policy based argument for a change undermines consensus for the change. Also, WP:CONSENSUS states In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. If we don't have consensus for inclusion then we don't include. Springee (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting my disagreement with your (Springee) argumentation. Add an image from both the sides of the debate, if you wish, at best. ∯WBG^converse 18:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, OK, with that I accept that consensus opinion doesn't currently support removal of the picture. However, I would be interested to know why you feel that it doesn't violate NPOV to include a clearly one sided illustration that doesn't align with the text. I'll add one of the images suggested by Tobby72. Springee (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Washington, NRA president?

@Objective3000:, I saw that you reversed an IP edit adding Thomas Washington as NRA president between 1993 and 1995. A search for the name doesn't bring up much but he does appear to have been the NRA president until his death in 1995 [[18]]. I didn't see anything about it in my brief search of the archives. I'm normally very suspicious of IP edits here but it appears to have been correct (though without sourcing). What issue did you see? Springee (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A one edit addition with no source doesn't pass, IP or not. If you have a source, feel free.... O3000 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that thinking and your concerns. Springee (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE material added

The material added here [[19]] regarding San Francisco's board of supervisors calling the NRA a terrorist organization is currently UNDUE. Per NOTNEWS, this isn't something that can be shown to have any long term impact on the NRA. In 10 years is this claim going to mean anything other than some politicians grand standing? Beyond that, it's not clear how this material integrates into the existing text or supports the section. Factoids shouldn't be added as stand alone things. Springee (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree since it's just one city and not really what a city does. If a bunch of major cities piles on; that would be different. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I would concede that it might have a place in the "Criticism" section, but it'd need to be phrased within that context. DBalling (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to amend what I said and note that if this turns into something bigger, for example the civil rights case brought by the NRA against NY then it should absolutely be included. However at this time the weight seems like something that will be forgotten next year. Springee (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Reported in the NYTs, position of a significant organization. Belongs somewhere in this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just claiming it belongs "somewhere" is very weak. Where and why? It was political posturing by a city board. This is the same board of supervisors who voted to change pet owners into "pet guardians" [[20]]. It's a meaningless political stunt and NOTNEWS applies here. Springee (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't refer to this a "political posturing" in edit summaries. This is your opinion about a city dealing with a serious problem. Having said that, I don't think it belongs at this time as it's one city using a charged term. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)