Talk:National Rifle Association

Removal

I removed the following:

even though statistics have proven otherwise. When the UK established gun control in 1997, homicides went up 60%[1], and the UK now has more crime per capita than the US. Many other countries who established gun control followed in the UK's footsteps[2]. The states with the most gun control are notorious for crime[3], and wherever a shall-issue concealed carry bill gets passed, crime drops[4]. Switzerland has very little crime, yet every adult male is required to own a gun, and assault weapons are readily available.

It's fairly well cited but needs to be moved. It was in the criticism section under From gun control advocates. The section is a rebuttal, which should be placed elsewhere. The section needs to be about what gun control advocates say/do, not what gun rights people respond with. It would be even better under criticism in a gun-control page. Dark jedi requiem 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Being Swiss I can assure you that the above is true. There are many guns here in Switzerland and much less crime then in all those places that ban them. Gun Control is a failure... the more you control it, the more the mob does the business and the wrong people get the guns. MESWISS

I'm pro-gun but I reckon such material belongs elsewhere, such as in gun control. —Tamfang 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Board of Directors

OK, this was archived, but wanted to reply anyway. Regarding the Board of Directors, my ballot came in yesterday. Feel free to work this into the article any way you want. It is the Feb 2007 issue of America's 1st Freedom. "The Board consists of 76 Directors. The Bylaws require that one-third of the terms of office of 75 expire at each Annual Meeting of Members. One Director will be elected for a one-year term at each Annual Meeting of Members." This 2007 election fills 25 3-year terms (expire 2010) and the 1 1-year.

If you want more specifics on any of these 36 people (30 by the Nominating Committee, 7 by write in but one dupe), lemme know I will try to help. I wikilinked any name I thought would link. Alphabetically listed (randomized on the ballot by Bylaws). Even tho normal wiki-etiquette forbids it, anybody can feel free to edit this post if they know it is the right person. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Hon. Joe M. Allbaugh, Oak Hill, TX
• Frank E. Bachhuber Jr, J.D. Wausau, WI
• Mrs. M. Carol Bambery, Rockville, MD
• The Hon. Bob Barr, Smyrna, GA
• State Rep Clel Baudler, Greenfield, IA
• The Hon. Bill K. Brewster, Marietta, OK
• Mr. David Butz, Belleville, IL
• Mr. Alberto (Al) R. Cardenas, Miami, FL
• The Hon. Larry E. Craig, Payette, ID
• Capt. James W. Dark, Arlington, TX
• Mr. Fred Edgecomb, Clinton, NC
• Mr. Ken Elliott, Northridge, CA
• Mr. Charles E. Fox, Troy, PA
• Ms. Sandra S. Froman, Tucson, AZ
• Mrs. Marion P. Hammer, Tallahassee, FL
• Ms. Susan Howard, Borne, TX
• Sgt. H. Joaquin Jackson, Texas Ranger (Ret.), Alpine, TX
• The Hon. Curtis S. Jenkin, Forsyth, GA

• Special Agent David C. Jones (Ret.), Ellisville, MI
• Mrs. Sue King, Houston, TX
• Mr. Tom King, East Greenbrush, NY
• Mr. Karl A. Malone, Farmerville, LA
• Cleta Mitchell, Esq., Washington, DC
• Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, USMC (Ret.), Bluemont, VA
• Sen. Johnny Nugent, Lawrenceberg, IN
• Mr. Ted Nugent, Waco, TX
• Det. Lance Olson, Marengo, IA
• Timothy W. Pawol, Esq., Pittsburgh, PA
• James W. Porter II, J.D. Birmingham, AL
• Mr. Steven C. Schreiner, Englewood, CO
• Mr. Jim Supica, Lenexa, KS
• Deputy Dwight Van Horn (Ret.), Hayden, ID
• Mr. Rober L. Viden, JR., Glassboro, NJ
• The Hon. Harold L. Volkmer, Hannibal, MI
• Mr. Rober K. Wos, North Royalton, OH
• The Hon. Donald E. Young, Ft. Yukon, AK

Heston caption

I changed the caption to what he actually said. 75.13.228.81 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The NRA and the KKK

What does the NRA have to do with the KKK. Get your facts straight before posting such nonscence!!! AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan were criminalised and deemed a terrorist organisation by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Coincidentally, the National Rifle Association was founded in the same year. I think this should be mentioned - 82.16.7.63 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is based on a ridiculous claim that Michael Moore makes in Bowling for Colombine where he implies that the NRA was founded by the KKK members. Mind you he doesn't come out and say it, because of course there is no evidence. Simply listing things that happened in 1871 isn't appropriate for this page, it belongs on the 1871 artible. A simple history of both organizations shows the lack of connection between the groups. Arthurrh 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, exactly? It's pretty well known that the KKK was interested in disarming blacks, and supported gun control laws which would have a disparate impact on blacks, but I don't know that the NRA was lobbying against gun control back in 1870 - it started as a shooting club kind of operation. User:Argyriou (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the histories. First off, as you've pointed out why would a group supporting gun control form a group interested in training people to use guns. Secondly, the individuals who created the KKK were veterans from the Confederate Army. The individuals who founded the NRA were veterans from the Union Army.

Things founded in 1871 (perhaps they're all associated with the KKK) ;-)

• Rossville, KS
• Fargo, ND

Perhaps KKK members were fleeing to less settled areas.

• Union Bank & Trust
• United States Mortgage & Trust

Maybe the KKK guys all went and started banks!

Several colleges were founded that year as well, how nefarious! This was just a few minutes work. Let's not bother with it anymore. Arthurrh

• Hey! Don't forget Baseball! The first Major League Baseball game was played exactly 2 weeks after the Ku Klux Klan Act was passed. Those rascally KKK-ers took time out from their busy schedule of racism, founding towns, banks, and sportsmans groups to give us America's pastime! Those guys sure were busy. Surely the KKK-NRA-MLB connection needs to be mentioned?--SpudHawg948 (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's debunk the OP's ridiculous assertion completely. The KKK was founded in 1866, not 1871. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift I think you have that back to front, it was the NRA that was founded in 1871, the same year the KKK was criminalised. I think this was OP#'s point. By the way it's not a ridiculous assertion nor was it started by Michael Moore, the coincidence has long been commented on, in fact almost certainly since 1871.--81.151.61.49 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have anything back to front. The Klan existed long before the NRA. Everything after that is smoke and mirrors. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Think maybe the founding of the NRA was part of Grant's push against the Klan? Nah, couldn't be. Izuko (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

Why did I add the POV tag? The NRA is subject to a lot of criticism, yet that section is puny. There are only three lines describing the criticism from those in favor of gun control. The section mainly states who critizies the NRA, with the actual criticisms being omitted. The "From gun control advocates" should be as detailed, given an overview of the actual criticism, as the "From other gun rights organizations" sub-section. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for criticisms that should be listed? 98.197.101.8 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if he does, but I have a serious probably with the image of Charlton Heston placed on here. The caption reads, 'Charlton Heston accepting a presentation rifle at 2000 NRA convention with the now well-known exclamation "From my cold, dead hands!"'

This image does not at all contribute to the article. Taking a screenshot from a Michael Moore documentary (I am of course, referring to Bowling for Columbine) and plastering it up on the NRA page with the quote "From my cold, dead hands!" makes the NRA seem like an armed institution of mental patients. While I personally agree with this portrayal, it is completely unencyclopedic and degrading to the article. After all, the first thing most people look at is the photo captions in an article.

Charlton Heston is not even the president of the NRA anymore, and hasn't been for 5 years. I don't even see why an image of him is necessary at the beginning of the article. Kayne Robinson (http://www.nraleaders.com/kayne-robinson.html) is the president right now, so why don't we put a picture of him up there? And finally, if you decide for some reason that a picture of Charlton Heston is absolutely necessary at the beginning of the article, why not put the image that's on his bio page up? --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 05:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is iconic of the NRA - used by both the NRA and it's detractors. A better choice would be from NRA merchandise with the same picture and similar caption. I will search for this or scan mine. Jimgettman 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture was probably posted out of pure nostalgia. After all, Charleton Heston was an icon in his own time and one of the NRA's most popular presidents. However, I do agree that the picture may be a little too dated to be placed in the first section of the article. I think the picture would be perfect if placed on Charelton Heston's personal Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, however the NRA is not a USA founded organisation as implied; The National Rifle Association (now the governing body of fullbore rifle and centre-fire pistol shooting in Great Britain) was founded in 1859, originally to provide a focus for marksmanship for the newly formed corps of volunteers which had been raised to meet the perceived threat of invasion by the French. The NRA was granted Royal Charter in 1894. This Royal Charter continues to this day for the "promotion of marksmanship in the interests of the Defence of Realm and permanence of the Volunteer Forces, Navy military and Air".

The NRA makes no attempts to hide its ‘parenting’ organization. From what I’ve read in one of their own publications the NRA is saddened to see the Anti-Gun measures taken in the UK and the rise in violent crime involving handguns as a result. They mention it as a ‘Beware’ type message. Joliver375 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NRA Rating

I've seen this when dealing with a politician's opinion about gun control. What is it? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of lobbying groups have ratings for elected officials. For instance, the NRA ranks people based upon their voting records (in congress for example), and how it corresponds to what the NRA believes. The NRA uses an A-F rating "A" being most compatible to what the NRA believes.Dahar81 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism in the wake of Columbine

Someone who knows more about it should write about the criticism they received when a few weeks after Columbine, they insisted on having their annual meeting near Littleton. From what I remember it was quite controversial--I believe Moore addressed it in Bowling for Columbine--and I know it shaped a certain amount of public opinion about the organization both in 1999 and when the movie came out. However I've also recently read that actually the group *did* cancel or postpone many meetings in response to the outcry; however, I can't find anything about it on either this page or the Heston page. In light of Heston's recent death (and his "appearance" as the front man for the NRA in the documentary), perhaps it should be detailed exactly what happened. 68.161.99.78 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Within the Criticism section, such as it is, should we include the fact that the NRA steadfastly opposed the SCOTUS case DC v. Heller until rather late in the game? It's not that I am anti-gun rights, quite the contrary, but as a demonstrable fact I think it's important that people know that the NRA is not necessarily the best friend that a gun owner could have, an image that they have cultivated for the last 20 years or so. 68.44.168.52 (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of / from the American Hunters and Shooters Association

The AHSA has a section dedicated to criticism from the NRA, but this page has no mention of criticism from the AHSA. In order to be fair, there should be some mention of the AHSA's critiquing of NRA policy / agenda.--E8 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well the AHSA is obviously an anti-gun front group. It's main funders are from anti-gun organizations like the VPC and HCI. Everyone in their upper echelon of management has ties to anti-gun groups and they consistently endorse politicians that have a track record of voting anti-gun.

      I personally see the AHSA as another attempt by the liberal media to equate the 2nd amendment with hunting. Although there is no mention or reference to hunting in the 2nd amendment, hunting is used as a scapegoat to attempt to ban certain types of weapons based on their "sporting purpose" rather than the self-defense potential that the 2nd amendment was drafted to support.

• I don't see it as an issue of fairness. Just because the editors in that article felt it was relevent and encyclopedic for that article doesn't mean there needs to be mention of it here for this article to be fair. Each article should have inclusions based on it's own discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Each article should have inclusions based on it's own discussion." This is why I broached the subject. Some inclusion is necessary as the AHSA perspective is very different, but no less valid.--E8 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Let me ask this: Why is the AHSA criticism important? Considering the laundry list of groups that criticize the NRA and aren't included, what makes AHSA stand out as more relevent than others? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, good point. Listing out all objections would be difficult. I'm under the impression the NRA is a right-centrist group, so I expect to see a roughly equal (if not, more) number of objections from liberals (there are many from more conservative voices/groups in the criticism section). Though the AHSA appears to be more liberal and provides some criticisms not listed here, they seem inappropriate unless the group becomes more relevant.--E8 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Warning: This is my personal opinion. The AHSA is really a front group. Their title suggests they support gun ownership but many of their leadership are formerly (and not so formerly) leaders in big gun control groups. Founder Ray Schoenke contributes heavily to Handgun Control Inc. Founding member Jon Rosenthal also founded Stop Handgun Violence. Board member Joseph J. Vince, Jr is a frequent contractor for Handgun Control, Inc. So, where does that leave us? You have people tied to the bigger gun control groups, running this outfit. So if we are listing criticism from HCI/Brady Campaign, we essentially are listing the criticism from AHSA because of the co-mingling of the groups and it would be somewhat redundant. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that the AHSA didn't even have a transparent membership application a month ago, I'm not inclined to disagree with your opinion. The one criticism they make, which I consider valid, is the NRA's support of politicians with poor environmental / wilderness preservation voting records; it would be good to see the NRA factor this concern into their endorsements (better to see politicians that support both).--E8 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• That is a valid point, but I see the NRA becoming more focused on the actual legal issues and I approve of it. There are plenty of organizations that make wilderness preservation their focus, while the NRA is one of, if not the, pre-eminent force for the preservation of the Second Amendment. I'd prefer they stay focused on that instead of trying to be all things to all people. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • I suggest NPOV requires keeping this article focused on what NRA has been and is, rather than what it should or might be. It is challenging to find neutral references for many of NRA's actions. NRA's political endorsements have deviated from a pure firearms ownership and use basis. For example, where both major party candidates have anti-gun positions, NRA has declined to endorse third party candidates (including Libertarians) with pro-gun ownership positions. This suggests NRA reluctance to fragment one or both of the major parties. It is easy to conclude which one of the parties is favored by this practice, but it might be difficult to find a NPOV reference. Thewellman (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the NRA doesn't have a history of endorsing 3rd party candidates, but it doesn't go against them either. If there are say, 14 candidates for President, they can really endorse only one, right? The NRA is a strong organization, but they can't lift a party up by themselves. In my state, Libertarians got 3/10ths of a percent of the vote this week. That's just not a good investment for them to make. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I've added the NPOV tag because, as discussed above, the Criticism section merely states that pro-gun control groups "criticize" the NRA without any mention of what this criticism consists of. The absurd shortness of this section is evidenced by the fact that the section detailing criticism from other gun rights groups is FOUR TIMES AS LONG as criticism from gun control groups (gun control groups criticize the NRA far more than other gun rights groups). Idag (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course anti-gun groups are going to criticize a pro-gun organization. Having a "criticism from anti-gun groups" section on this page is like having a "criticism from vegetarian groups" on a wikipedia article from the american cattleman's association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Just because there will "of course" be criticism of a pro-gun organization does not mean that this criticism should not be included. See WP:NPOV. Idag (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• The neutrality of this article isn't compromised just because a totally different article has more criticism. This article has a reasonable sampling of criticism. There is no brightline rule about how much criticism an article must have. And I don't find the reasoning that some other article has more to be a compelling reason to question the neutrality of this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What other article are you talking about? My comment was on the fact that the criticism sectin in THIS ARTICLE is unbalanced per WP:Undue Weight because there is a detailed summary of criticism from other gun rights groups while the gun control criticism section merely states that "The NRA is criticized by gun control groups." There is absolutely no elaboration on this point and a generic uninformative statement like that certainly does not qualify as a "reasonable sampling of criticism." Idag (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• • There was another article that another editor was comparing this one with. I confused you and him. WP:Undue doesn't apply here. There is no undue weight being given to anything. There may not be more of one type than another, but that isn't what wp:undue is talking about. Personally, I thing, as the other editor stated, it's a given that gun control groups will be critical of the NRA. They want the opposite thing. It's pretty obvious. What seems much more educational, informative and encylopedic is including the criticism by groups on the same side of the issue, rather than stating the obvious. BTW, I looked at the articles for the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. None of them include any criticism by the NRA, one includes no criticism and 2 are simply 1 paragraph, generic criticisms. It looks to me like this article contains more criticism than similar ones and presents the less obvious. With that said, I feel your NPOV tag should be removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Undue Weight (emphasis added)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Its fairly safe to say that criticism of the NRA by gun control groups is far more numerous than criticism by other gun rights groups. Yet the passage summarizing the criticism by gun rights groups is four times as long as the passage summarizing the criticism by gun control groups, even though the latter criticism is far more prevalent and more prominent. In fact the gun control groups passage merely states that these groups "criticize" the NRA with no elaboration on what this criticism consists of. The criticism by the gun control groups may be "obvious", but it is still far more prevalent than other types of criticism, and WP:Undue requires that we give it the requisite elaboration. Other articles may skimp on criticism by the NRA, and they may need to be fixed if the NRA criticism is prevalent enough, but that is irrelevant for purposes of this article, which clearly violates WP:Undue Weight. For that reason, I oppose removing the tag until the criticism section is fixed. Idag (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've read wp:undue before, thanks. I don't think stating the obvious is required. Maybe I give readers more credit than I should, but I think that most people, without being told, could figure out that groups who want to ban firearms are critical of the NRA. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the entire point, ALL this article says is that these groups are critical of the NRA. It says NOTHING about what the criticism actually consists of. That's like saying "Bill Clinton was criticized for the Lewinsky scandal." Sure, anyone who knows about these events will know what the criticism consists of, but the article wouldn't be very informative if that's all it said about that criticism. The reason most folks come to this article is to learn more about this topic, and pertinent information should not be withheld because it is "obvious" to you. You also haven't addressed my point about the need, under WP:Undue, to expand the criticism subsection to reflect its prevalence. Your argument that its "obvious" does not make that criticism any less prevalent and does not alter the requirements of WP:Undue. Idag (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since the amount of criticism by anti-gun groups wasn't complete enough to satisfy you, I removed it for you. Now we don't need to worry about how incomplete the section is. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out in my edit, removing insufficient prevalent criticism is not the way to address the POV problem, it only exacerbates it. The POV issue can only be resolved by developing the criticism to reflect its prevalence. Idag (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Then what the world do you want? If you want to drum up some quotes from anti-gun organizations that state the obvious, then DO IT and quit just complaining about it. Sheesh. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, I put up a POV tag until I (or someone else) have time to fix this article, which is the purpose of the POV tag (some of us do have lives outside Wikipedia). I would also remind you about WP:Civil. Idag (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Putting the tag and all this writing you've done explaining why you think it isn't neutral IS complaining. All you've done is offer the complaint and no solution. What is your solution? Since I have a life outside of Wikipedia too, I'm not going to take my time to satisfy your complaint. And there was nothing uncivil in my response, so move along there. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have stated repeatedly that the actual criticism of the gun control groups needs to be added in. So instead of saying "NRA is criticized by the following groups", the article should say "Group X said Y about the NRA". Idag (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• And I will repeat.... don't just complain about it. Fix it if it troubles you. If this is such an issue to you, correct it instead of sitting back and expecting others to do something about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Next time, check the main article before you say something stupid on the talk page. Re your previous post: "All you've done is offer the complaint and no solution. What is your solution?" I have offered the solution. As I stated earlier, I don't have all day to work on this, so I will add content as I get free time. The tag and corresponding explanation are for other editors who may wish to improve this aticle in their spare time. Any other painfully obvious points of business you'd like me to point out? Idag (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I did check it and your solution isn't much different than what was originally there. And if you think it takes "all day" to find documented criticism from anti-gun groups, feel free to email me and I'll give you some pointers on how to conduct your research better because it's not exactly hidden stuff. For someone who was just whining about wp:civil, I find it odd that you'd choose to call my response "something stupid". That's not too civil, now is it? And it's interesting that you complain about the "painfully obvious", when that is the source of your gripe....... you are complaining that there isn't enough painfully obvious criticism from anti-gun group. I would like to know, however, how you find including quotes from POV sources, like those groups, to be NPOV? They aren't neutral and including their press releases from thier own websites isn't neutral. Can't you find criticism from neutral sources, like newspapers and magazines? Because these websites will be disputed as sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

First, sorry about the "stupid" comment, I got frustrated and that was uncalled for. My solution is very different from what was there, as the relevant section now actually contains criticism instead of a vague assertion that criticism exists. It doesn't take all day to find criticism, but it does take some time to find decent non-random-liberal-rant criticism. Per your above comment the criticism that I've selected, apart from the token Brady campaign rant that I felt was representative of the group, is non-obvious and was made by well-regarded scholars.

With regard to neutral sources, the section is titled "Criticism from Gun Control Advocates". Obviously those advocates' websites are going to contain summaries of their criticisms. The section does not portray these sources as neutral in any way and repeatedly points out that they are in favor of gun control. Idag (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The view doesn't have to be neutral. The source does. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out, since your edits indicate that you are concerned about non-neutral "propaganda", that a number of footnotes that are currently in this article point to the NRA's website without any mention in the main text that the information these footnotes support comes directly from the NRA. Idag (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• You can point it out, but websites of an organization can be used in articles about themselves without worry about neutrality. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Found the relevant policy:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [the policy goes on to prohibit synthesis and interpretation of the primary source without secondary sources]" WP:OR

In the instant case, the Brady Campaign website is a reliable source regarding what the Brady Campaign says. Since the main text does not interpret the message, but merely summarizes and quotes from it, there is no violation. Idag (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia wants neutrality. The Third Way, which is a partisan organization, is not neutral. Coverage of their opinions by a NPOV source, such as a magazine of newspaper, is not wp:or, but it IS neutral. 03:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly...As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". WP:NPOV

The policy requires the inclusion of ALL points of view, not simply the inclusion of non-partisan grey area points of view. Idag (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• You aren't listening to anything I'm saying. I didn't say partisan POV's aren't allowed. I've been sayng the source of them should be neutral. Continuing this discussion with you is apparently pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Point out where the policy insists on that. I have repeatedly quoted policy passages that contradict your view, yet you keep arguing the same thing. Fine, show me where exactly the policy says that the sources I listed are improper. Idag (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

1. Looking at the difference in gun control vs. pro-gun organizations who criticize the NRA, I don't see a big deal about a disparity. Both cover diverse groups criticizing the NRA. It actually seems pretty natural to me that the pro-gun criticism would be more detailed and nuanced, because the pro-gun orgs will have substantial agreement with the NRA, hence the disagreements will be more nuanced. I would expect the same in any political organization--the environmentalist criticisms of Greenpeace will be more nuanced than those from the mainstream media, and internal dissent within a particular religion will be more pointed and specific than that from outsiders.
2. Per WP:TC#Cleanup, {{cleanup}} "... applies to general problems not addressed by other tags." I recommend it be removed in favor of a tag from WP:TC which more closely approximates the issue in question.
3. Also, if the NPOV tag applies to the criticism section, then use {{pov-section}} instead.

What else do you need a third opinion help with? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The only real issue left over is can we cite to the gun control groups' websites as sources for these groups' opinions in the main article? Idag (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, per WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS the Brady Campaign is a primary source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA. The NRA, on the other hand, is NOT a good source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA, because it is then a third party claim. Compare it once again to citing a religious group: If they come out and give their position on a topic, citing that is just fine. Reliable secondary sources are preferred, but there's plenty of room within those WP:V for self-published sources by the groups being discussed. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Of course the website can be used for info about themselves. He wants to use the partisan groups own website to give an opinion about the NRA. In other words, use the Brady site to comment about the NRA. I think that violates wp:sps. I contend it is much more preferred to find third party NPOV sources (like newspapers or magazines) to source any comments from these groups. It's not like they are difficult to find. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using the website to give info about the NRA, I'm using the website to give info about the Brady Campaign's opinion about the NRA. The Brady Campaign website is being used to give info about Brady Campaign's views. Idag (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I consider their view to information about the NRA. They say things about "The NRA wants this or that" or uses their site to characterize their interpretation of the NRA's view. Unlike a newspaper though, they won't present the NRA's POV as balance. According to wp:sps: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 3) it does not involve claims about third parties ". Claiming "the NRA wants this or that", is making claims about a third party. Again I ask, why not use neutral third party coverage of the groups claims? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're conflating two different things. A claim about myself is me saying "I like this." A claim about a third party is me saying "You don't like this." However, it is still a claim about my views if I say "I don't like you because you like this." Now you can point out that my reasoning for not liking you is incorrect, but that does not change the fact that it is my view, and when I say "I don't like you because you like this" I am expressing my view, which may or may not be based on correct reasoning. Same thing here, we are summarizing the gun control view. You may find sources that dispute their reasoning, and if you do, feel free to include them. But that does not change what their view is and what their proffered reasons for that view are. As I've stated earlier, I've gone through the newspaper sources (and have beefed up the relevant section a little bit with some of those sources), but they present views that are very narrow. I.e. the gun control view of specific bills and specific actions. I feel that the article is better served by using a broad summary of their views, and the best summaries were on their websites. Idag (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Those site summarize the NRA's views. Newspaper sources about specific bills and actions are better. Why not hear where they differ on specific points, from a third party, than to hear the general impressions of a partisan organization on their own website, presented without balance? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the purpose of this article is to educate a reader who isn't an expert on this subject, and the best way to do that is to begin the section by providing a general view. I'm not averse to putting in additional specific content from newspapers, but I think we should open the section with a general view and then provide specific examples. The two are not mutually exclusive. Idag (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Again, use 3rd party sources, not a partisan groups self-published website, to document the criticism. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, you and I are going to disagree about this. However, the third party opinion stated that my view is perfectly valid. Since we have third party opinions to resolve impasses such as this one, I would ask you to respect it. Idag (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• HE did? Really? He said: "the Brady Campaign is a primary source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA. The NRA, on the other hand, is NOT a good source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA, because it is then a third party claim." I say it violates wp:sps because when they summarize the NRA's position, they are offering info about them. Example: if you said "The Brady Campaign opposes the NRA" that would be valid. If you said "The NRA believes the right to own firearms is an individual right and we oppose that notion", that would not be valid because they are summarizing the NRA's position. And again, I contend there is plenty available in neutral sources. Are you refusing to use them simply because you want to prove a point, rather than strive for more neutrality? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Refusing to use what? You haven't provided any alternatives to the websites. Show me a neutral newspaper article that accurately details the groups' criticisms in a way that would be accessible to a layperson browsing this article and we'll talk. Until then, this debate is pointless. Idag (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Now you want me to do your research for you? Wow, that's starting to look lazy. Ok, how about this article that details the Brady Campaign's opposition to the NRA's actions regarding DC's gun law change. [5]. Even though the piece is opinionated, it carries debates from both sides and is documented by a third party news source (Reuters). THAT would be a neutral source and it didn't take me more than a couple of minutes to find it. This is not difficult stuff. Or maybe this article from CNN that talks about the Brady Campaign reaction to allegations that the NRA placed a paid mole in one of their groups. [6]. Again, contains criticism by Brady, documented by a third party and not hard to find. Or how about allegations made by Brady that the former NRA director who allegedly hired the mole assisted in McCain's campaign. [7] Again, contains opposition from Brady, documented by ABC News and easy to find. So there are 3 examples of 3rd party documentation of BRady criticism of the NRA. Total time expended for me to find those 3? About 10 minutes. FAR less time than I have wasted asking why you can't find these sources yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And as I've stated earlier, if you want to add them to what we already have I have no problem with that. However, you won't find newspaper sources about why the Brady Campaign is GENERALLY opposed to the NRA. If we just list a bunch of specific events that the Brady Campaign disliked, that would be a bit misleading because it wouldn't convey the general sense of animosity that exists between the groups. (Btw, I'm not opposed to quoting NRA sources for how the NRA feels about the gun control groups.) Idag (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I think Idag understands and represents my reasoning correctly. Niteshift36, if you'd like to invite further comment on this, feel free to post soliciting comments at WP:RS/N. However, I think there's a marked difference between "The Brady Campaign critiizes the NRA for XYZ" and "The Brady Campaign issued a press release stating, 'We oppose the NRA for taking position QRS on issue XYZ.'" In the first case, a reasonable person not paying attention might confuse the Brady campaign's retelling for the NRA's own statements. The second formulation makes that substantially less likely. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• No thanks, it's a waste of time. Only Idag has expressed a need to state the obvious (that anti-gun groups criticize the NRA). Only myself and one other editor bothered to disagree. Nobody else cared enough to rush in to opine. Only I have disputed his sources, which only he defended without seeking other assistance. Again, nobody else rushed in to opine. I continue to believe that using a neutral source is always preferable, whether or not you can find some way to read the rules to allow partisan sites as sources. However, nobody obviously nobody else cares and this is apparently far more important to him than to I. So I cease giving a damn. Use all the partisan stuff you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to review WP:YESPOV. (Jclemens, not signed in) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.178.134 (talk)

Citations

Added the citations tag because giant chunks of this article lack source cites. Idag (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)