Talk:National Rifle Association (United Kingdom)

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Gun politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial comments

I removed The camp itself is a glory to behold, a very special place for shooters from all over the world and is a unique place to visit. Many have remarked that the whole place is caught in a Victorian/Edwardian time warp. Nearly all the original buildings survive and many have obtained listed status. Relatively little has actually been built since 1914 and what has is in keeping with the other buildings. The whole camp is formally designated a conservation area. as the first part is very POV and the latter part contradicts what is said earlier at the new 2002 National clay shooting centre.--JBellis 11:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warp

Actually, the information removed by JBellis was not contradictory (although it would appear so to anyone who has not been there). This is because Bisley is divided into two parts: 1) The NRA Camp, which is a listed area where the buildings and atmosphere have changed very little since the Victorian/Edwardian period; and 2) the Ranges (located outside the Camp area), which are leased from the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), and which contain the newly developed 2002 National Clay Shooting Centre . Everyone who visits Bisley Camp area comments on the "time warp" impression. It's like visiting a theme park! Therefore, it would be appropriate to reinstate the removed material, but with a little editing (and a photograph or two) to clarify the message. — For example photographs, please see the Old Sergeants' Mess (which is inside the NRA Camp) and the 2002 National Clay Shooting Centre (built within the MoD Ranges area): http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/bclubs/clubs.asp?site=NRA&cid=30 http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/results/photos.asp?album=ranges&pre=ranges&title=Ranges ––BramblesBear 7 September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BramblesBear (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Removed anti gun opinion due to unencyclopedic content. Thewiikione 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK gun laws

I was hoping to see something about the UK gun laws, or a link to same. 80.0.97.122 00:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British NRA is a very different animal from the American NRA; it's a sporting organisation, not a broad-based campaigning body. Have a look at Gun politics in the United Kingdom for the sort of thing you're after. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Olympics

Shouldn't the fiasco over the 2012 Olympics and not choosing Bisley's National Shooting Centre have a mention as well as the fact that a major Olympic charter will be broken due to the lack of a legacy and the wastage of tens of millions of pounds?Twobells (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with the American NRA

This organisation is completely unrelated to and independent of the American NRA, correct? Part of the text of the article seems to imply this but given "the NRA" in the context of guns is almost universally taken to mean "the American NRA", some note of the relationship or lack thereof between the two organisations is, I feel required. 220.245.139.60 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Ross

Did a quick source check (thanks User:Hemmers for finding the recently-added web source): it seems he moved cap-badges a bit. The English VIII have him down as a Cambridge student when he won Queen's, but not necessarily a member of the CURV; he's later cited by Lyttleton as a captain in CUOTC when he won further prizes in 1864, and as a member of the London Scottish in 1865. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good research! We probably have to consider the possibility that as the volunteer movement itself was quite young, and as Ross was only seventeen, that aside from changing cap badges there's also the risk of transcription and record-keeping errors - or he may simply not have been recorded quite right. It's quite believable that if he'd only recently moved to Cambridge his cap badge could have changed between submitting entry and the day of competition, creating a disparity between NRA records and club records or media reporting. Hemmers (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's also true. I did try to see if I could spot anything regiment-specific in the pictures, but drew a blank (admittedly not from a position of much expertise in uniforms from the period). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artists' Rifles and WP:DUEWEIGHT

The section on the NRA's history has recently become rather unbalanced: half of the content is now devoted to the last 33 years (out of about 170), with most of that half going on the squabble over the Artists'. Under WP:DUEWEIGHT, the balance of detail in the article should reflect the balance of detail in published sources: a published history of the NRA would not give anything like as much relative space to the fine points of this dispute, particularly as it essentially petered out with little evident impact.

I'm loathe to go in with a hatchet and cut down something another editor has just worked on, but the details here really do need to be cut down (and perhaps moved to a page on the Mars and Minerva RC or the clubhouse itself, if such a page would pass GNG?) to a much more brief summary. In particular, I can't see an argument for including that whole block quotation from the CC in an article of this length: it currently has roughly as much prominence (by rough word count) as the move from Wimbledon and the entire period from 1930 to 2013. Happy to help with more concrete suggestions, or to make some bold edits if that would be felt helpful and tactful. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the History section is rather "First and Last" - 1860-1890, then 2010-present with very little in between. It's somethign I've had concerns about for a while. This I think is largely selection bias based on available references - there's plenty of sources covering the NRA's founding, and then modern content since 2000 (immensely helpful that the NRA have uploaded the Journal back to 2000). Results and details from the century in between are a bit sparse beyond the odd Pathe newsreel, unless we could get someone from the NRA Museum involved! It is unfortunate that a published history of the NRA doesn't seem to exist with decent information for the 20th century.

In terms of the weight of material, I think the Artists is worth some space given that it's somewhat of an exemplar of the various controversies that have occurred over leases and rent (clearly listing every case would be both tedious and UNDUE), and the change in managerial direction over the past decade, along with their improved financial stability. And equally, leases such as BSG/the Roupells are entirely unmentioned despite third party reporting. I think the Artists case also garners a little extra DUEness because it was so poorly reported in the press by journos desperate to get an "SAS" headline when the clubhouse and tenant have literally nothing to do with the Regiment, and it was one of the triggers for the CC referral (who agreed that their approach to setting leases was fine), so it's significant in that respect. There were also news articles claiming "victory" for the Artists when actually the final ruling was largely in the NRA's favour (confirming they owned the building). So whilst WP is not Snopes, as an encyclopaedic source it's not a bad thing to include some clear citations to what actually happened. I have slimmed it down though and moved the block quote into the CC citation as a ref quote. That covers one paragraph for the leases, which I think is reasonably DUE, and one for the CC investigation. As you say, neither Mars & Minerva, nor the clubhouse itself would meet GNG for a dedicated article.

I think on the whole, the History section needs to be about twice as long as it is - which would in itself improve the ratio/balance as it stands. It's not as long as the equivalent section for the NRA of America for instance. But I don't know enough about the NRA's history or key events 1900-1990 to write it! I have no objection to copy-editing on the Artists section provided the main facts of the matter are retained. This reply is evidence that I can run verbose at times! Hemmers (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreed on all of that, particularly that a general expansion will help with the History section. I wonder if there might be useful material in some old editions of the NRA journal? I think the section is currently in much better shape after (your?) recent edits. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]