Revision as of 21:44, 28 May 2014 editMike Searson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers28,704 edits →Unbalanced is the word← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:57, 8 December 2024 edit undoMuboshgu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators377,235 edits →Suggested renaming: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | |||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{controversial| }} | |||
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=gc|style=long}} | |||
{{ |
{{Calm}} | ||
{{American English}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Firearms|importance=High}} | |||
|b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = y | |||
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} | |||
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid}} | |||
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes | |||
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Mid}} | |||
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=High|gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=high}} | |||
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject Virginia|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States| class = B | |||
| importance = Mid | |||
| listas = | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject Organizations| class = B | |||
| importance = Mid | |||
| listas = | |||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Press | subject = article | author = Russell Brandom |title = How gun buffs took over Misplaced Pages’s AR-15 page | org = ] | url = https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting | date = March 6, 2018 | quote = WP:Firearms members rallied to defend language on the page calling the NRA “the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization,” a claim often made by the NRA and recently repeated on Fox & Friends. | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20180306185345/https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting | archivedate = March 6, 2018 | accessdate = March 7, 2018 | |||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}} | |||
| author2 = David Brennan | |||
| title2 = Pro-gun Group Edited Ar-15 Misplaced Pages Page To Hide Mass Shootings | |||
| org2 = ] | |||
| url2 = http://www.newsweek.com/pro-gun-group-edited-ar-15-wikipedia-page-hide-mass-shootings-834639 | |||
| date2 = March 7, 2018 | |||
| quote2 = The Verge also reported that the WP: Firearms group is involved in editing the National Rifle Association’s Misplaced Pages page. | |||
| archiveurl2 = | |||
| archivedate2 = | |||
| accessdate2 = March 10, 2018 }} | |||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gc|style=long}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
|target=Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive index | |target=Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive index | ||
Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 7 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
|archive = Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | |||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-11-17|oldid1=810757472}} | |||
{{old move | |||
| date1 = 29 March 2022 | |||
| destination1 = National Rifle Association of America | |||
| result1 = no consensus | |||
| link1 = Special:Permalink/1093631772#Moving article to "National Rifle Association of America" | |||
| date2 = 22 November 2024 | |||
| destination2 = National Rifle Association of America | |||
| result2 = not moved | |||
| link2 = Special:Permalink/1260198089#Requested move 22 November 2024 | |||
}} | }} | ||
== |
== Jim Baker redirect == | ||
redirect without actual reference: | |||
Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following... | |||
<blockquote>National Rifle Association (redirect from Jim Baker (lobbyist))</blockquote> | |||
:"In 2011, the organization declined an offer to discuss gun control with U.S. President Barack Obama. However, at the same time, LaPierre said that "the NRA has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto|title=N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy|last=CALMES|first=JACKIE |date=JACKIE |publisher=New York Times|accessdate=15 March 2011}}</ref>" | |||
I removed it once after trying to find a better place for it, but it seems like a POV "I told you so" kind of comment to me. Someone has returned it. What relevance does this have in this section? | |||
== Requested move 22 November 2024 == | |||
== References == | |||
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' | |||
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 15:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== IP(s) Edit warring 12 times the same edit == | |||
---- | |||
] → {{no redirect|National Rifle Association of America}} – ]National Rifle Association is unique amongst articles relating to ] in the title being arbitrarily abbreviated. The organisation is called the “National Rifle Association of America”, but the en.WP article title omits “of America”. In 2024, this: | |||
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. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 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 ] on an older IP, and then ]. ] (]) 20:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Could be home and school. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. I am living a breathing proof that not everyone in Colorado like gun violence. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::*"proponents of gun violence"? No, that doesn't sound biased at all. ] (]) 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. ] ]</font> 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? ] ]</font> 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
* Does not conform to ] | |||
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. ] is a good example. Then again you probably blame the ] on the NRA as well... --] (]) 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
* Does not reflect the most common usage within WP | |||
::This is about Misplaced Pages NPOV policy, not politics. This is not a forum. | |||
* Deserves re-assessment and scrutiny per ] to ensure it is not embedding systemic bias. | |||
:♠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. ] ]</font> 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 ]... ;) --] (]) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Will you now address the NPOV status of this page and no longer attempt to spew politics? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::::Right after you do, which, by your responses so far, will be never. ] ]</font> 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 Misplaced Pages 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
{{od}} 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. ] (]) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
This proposed move will probably be more controversial than it really should be. | |||
:::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 Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. I will continue to make changes as long as my existence is ignored by those of you hiding behind fake names. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
'''WP:CRITERIA''' | |||
::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). ] ]</font> 15:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I misspoke, we have pending changes on, not semi protected.] (]) 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."] (]) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
* '''Recognizability:''' The abbreviated form is only recognisable when contextualised as US/USPol. Most Authority Control sources & third party encyclopaedias use the full name, since context is not available until you start reading the entry. | |||
* '''Naturalness:''' “of America” is not unnatural - the other articles cope with “of Australia” or “of India”. Moreover, the majority of in-body wikilinks use the full “of America” form, so editors across en.WP don't find it too objectionable. | |||
** shows 983 indirect links (of which ) versus 906 direct links. However, some 556 of the direct links are from articles . In terms of “in-body” or “organic” wikilinks , it’s something like 983 indirect versus just 350 direct. The current title is not actually that commonly used within wikipedia. | |||
* '''Precision:''' “National Rifle Association” is imprecise and does not unambiguously define the scope. This has caused actual errors and confusion including: | |||
** https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arthur_Young_(police_officer)&diff=next&oldid=1059158586 | |||
** https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wellingborough_School_CCF&diff=377972454&oldid=375522019 | |||
* '''Concision:''' “of America” is not verbose. It might be verbose to use it repeatedly once contextualised, but not on first use or as an article title. | |||
* '''Consistency:''' omitting “of America” is inconsistent with NRA of India/Pakistan/Australia/New Zealand/Norway. We “got away with it” when Misplaced Pages was more US-centric, but Misplaced Pages is now covers more global subjects and it deserves re-evaluation to ensure we are not embedding systemic bias. | |||
'''WP:COMMONNAME''' | |||
A ] on the Talk page (which was not an RfM discussion and therefore mainly engaged involved editors) came to No Consensus for Change. Some editors cited ] when opposing the move. However, this seems to be a ] interpretation as COMMONNAME is really intended for situations like Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali. Although there are exceptions where an abbreviation or acronym is used (e.g. ]), the only way I can see it applying here is by arguing that “the abbreviated form is what mass media use”. However, COMMONNAME is more nuanced than that: | |||
{{Blockquote | |||
|text=“Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. '''Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.''' … When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.” | |||
}} | |||
(Emphasis mine). The abbreviated form is not Precise or Consistent and is ambiguous without further context. Even if it commonly used (''in context'') by reliable third-party sources, it is not encyclopaedic. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should look beyond the scope of what CNN or the NYT use and consider authoritative sources. | |||
===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 ] tenet is more neutral. We are not stating anything about a fact of civil right or not | |||
] (]) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
* The majority of Authority Control sources use the full “of America” including ; ; ; and . | |||
:♠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. ] ]</font> 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (PS. Wasn't trying to bust you over "protected"... :D ) | |||
COMMONNAME also suggests looking at other encyclopaedic sources to determine what titles are in an encyclopaedic ]. | |||
Any overall characterization as lobbying is inaccurate. It's like one out of 10 major categories of things that they are/do. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 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? ] (]) 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, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
* Encyclopaedia Britannica: | |||
::See this is what I wanted! There is no consensus as to what the material on this article should say. | |||
* Brockhaus Enzyklopädie: | |||
:♠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." | |||
* Geonames: | |||
:♠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. | |||
Most non-English Wikipedias also use “of America” , , . ] (]) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::They do gun proficiency, yes. They also do things explicitly that are safety oriented. (Eddie eagle, storage recommendations, etc) ] (]) 18:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:What has changed since your last move request 2 years ago? ] (]) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (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. ] ]</font> 22:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::* Increasing globalisation, which deserves re-assessment - ]. The last discussion was a pure article talk discussion not a wider RFM, which limited contributions largely to involved editors. In light of Globalise, wider opinions should be sought. | |||
::* Declining usage of the current title vs. the "of America" redirect for in-body wikilinks. In a similar vein, NRA ] from being a redirect, since additional global "NRAs" meant "National Rifle Association" (of America) no longer met the criteria for Primary Topic. | |||
::* An understanding that when WP:COMMONNAME was invoked in 2022, those doing so neglected to address the caveat highlighted above, and may have been citing the policy erronously on a ] basis. This should have been challenged more robustly at the time. It is reasonable that the application and relevance of WP:COMMONNAME should be discussed and clarified, since the policy itself seems to explicitly oppose the current title. I hope those citing COMMONNAME this time around will address this issue and not just say "Oppose per COMMONNAME", which would be unhelpful given the clear and explicit issues presented. | |||
::The simple fact is, the current title does not comply with WP:CRIT or WP:COMMONNAME. It just doesn't. Authority Sources, other encyclopaedias - even other Wikipedias - all agree. We're out of step. | |||
::] (]) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Can you provide evidence for those claims? Otherwise, this looks like you didn't get the answer you wanted last time so you are asking again in hopes of getting a different answer this time. On Misplaced Pages such strategies do work from time to time but it would be better if you provided better details why things have changed. Ping previous participants{{ping|Chaheel_Riens|HiLo48|Bobsd|Muboshgu}}. ] (]) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::'''Can you provide evidence for those claims?''' | |||
::::I have - at some effort - literally compiled an extensive critique of this article's non-compliance with established WP Policy. I must ask you to engage with the substance of the issue and not engage in what could be considered ''ad hominems''. | |||
::::Changes - such as "National Rifle Association" being less widely used than "National Rifle Association of America" - are clearly evident in the wikilink stats (which I have listed). There was also the NRA disambig move. I have provided examples of erroneous links made to the wrong National Rifle Association. And we must remember that there was no firm consensus to "Keep" the title in 2022. It was a "No Consensus to Change", which is open-ended and accepts that there is uncertainty. If we are going to stick with a non-standard, inconsistent, non-compliant title, then we must expect it to be challenged and reconsidered periodically. Consensus can change. | |||
::::I accept that "having another go" is sometimes deployed as a poor faith strategy. I would also caution that attempting to discredit the RFM by saying "it's just sour grapes" whilst declining to engage with any of the issues raised (including subsequent changes) is also poor faith. I am sure that is not your intention and your next post will "play the ball". ] (]) 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::How many of the examples of ] are ones you added/changed from ]? The first one I investigated is the link from ]'s article. It was added in 2014 or so as National Rifle Association (the cited reference just says NRA). You added "of America" last year . How many other redirects did you change? Did your edits significantly change the numbers? Note that I picked Ice T's article basically because it was on the list and didn't seem like the sort of article that would include the Conservativism template. ] (]) 15:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::'''AGREE''' with changing to '''National Rifle Association of America''' | |||
:::My opinion has not changed since two years ago: | |||
:::] is applicable in this case, because we '''already have''' additional articles with the text "National Rifle Association" so for '''precision''' and '''consistency''', I think the article should be moved, and let the disambiguation page do its thing. | |||
:::* '''Precision''' – The title '''unambiguously identifies the article's subject''' and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See ], below.) | |||
:::* '''Consistency''' – The title is '''consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.''' | |||
:::Here are the current Misplaced Pages articles containing the text "National Rifle Association" . | |||
:::They all contain the country name, which makes sense since '''"National"''' needs to point to '''"which nation" <u>as soon as there is more than one.</u>''' | |||
:::What can possibly wrong with being MORE accurate AND consistent ??? | |||
:::: ] ''Note: we don't have to use the full name ... because "we" are America? :)'' | |||
:::: ] | |||
:::: ] | |||
:::: ] | |||
:::: ] | |||
:::: ] | |||
:::: ] | |||
:::Here is Britannica: | |||
:::* includes: National Rifle Association of America: …'''NRA was modeled after the National Rifle Association in Great Britain,''' which had been formed in 1859. | |||
:::* National Rifle Association of America (NRA), leading gun rights organization in the United States. The NRA was founded as a governing body ... | |||
:::Here is the copyright notice on the bottom of every webpage at the www.nra.org (where you need to be accurate for © ) | |||
:::© 2024 National Rifle Association of America. | |||
:::<span style="border-radius:9em;background:#88ff00">] </span>(]) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' Nothing has changed since the discussion two years ago. "National Rifle Association" is the ] in press reports. It is more ] without "of America", and is ] enough without the extra disambiguation. – ] (]) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Why doesn't this apply? | |||
*:'''Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.''' ] (]) 15:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Because it's not ambiguous or inaccurate. – ] (]) 15:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::It literally is ambiguous, and I have provided examples where users have wikilinked to the wrong article! Moreover, global notability has diluted enough that it lost PT on ]. There are also far more articles linking to the full "...of America" redirect than the base title (by a ~3:1 ratio, excluding the Conservatism US template). The current title is inconsistent & imprecise - unless we're contending that all the major Authority Control sources and third party encyclopaedias are wrong, or excessively pedantic? It feels like a Seymour Skinner "no, the children are wrong" position to be in! ] (]) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::How many of those are articles that you changed? ] (]) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::I'm not sure if this link will look the same for everyone but I selected the "...of America" (see ''(of which 962 are the "of America" redirect)'' above). I then selected 500 entries per page, selected the second page then reviewed the first 15 articles listed. All 15 were recently changed, after the 2022 move request, to link to "...of America" vs without. I think it's safe to say very few articles were originally written as "of America". It's only a question of how many. Most of the articles are about Americans so the NRA context would be clear. In every case I checked, which wasn't many, the source didn't specify "of America". Sometime it just said NRA. ] (]) 17:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:@Muboshgu, Actually, here are the stats from a google search: | |||
*:"National Rifle Assocation" = 2,470,000 | |||
*:"NRA" = 43,800,000 | |||
*:By your criteria of frequency used in the cloud, the name of the article should be changed to "NRA" | |||
*:<span style="border-radius:9em;background:#88ff00">] </span>(]) 19:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I support the change mainly because I can not see any downside to being more '''accurate '''in the naming of the article. Yes, most people in the US and even globally refer to the organization as the "NRA", or less commonly take the time to say "National Rifle Association" , and fewer still would get out the mouthful "National Rifle Association of America" ... unless the person being addressed was confused, and qualification was needed. Say when speaking to someone in the UK. We are not supposed to be US-centric. So why not just be accurate and call the article by the same name that the organization itself uses? | |||
::::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:When someone visits Misplaced Pages, and starts typing "National Rifle Association ..." all the articles will show in the list, and they can choose from there. No problem. Also consider, if we are stuck on the most commonly found reference to the organization, that would be "NRA" So why are those opposed to making the title more accurate, not pushing for changing the title to "NRA", which as a search term, doesn't even pull up the any of the National Rifle Association articles. | |||
:I'm a retired CSQE where more accurate (less ambiguous) was never considered a problem in any way ... ambiguous requirements gets you planes falling out of the sky. Almost every point @] has made seems to be met with a '''''yes, but''''' ] and ] without addressing why they should have priority over ] and ]. | |||
:I have nothing more I feel I can add to this discussion. <span style="border-radius:9em;background:#88ff00">] </span>(]) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}* '''Oppose''' I believe that nothing has fundamentally changed since the same editor proposed the same change back in 2022 Arguments then are as valid now as they were first time round. Responding due to a ping, because despite the comment from Hemmers that contributions last time round {{tpq|mainly engaged involved editors}} - I've only ever edited the article to revert vandalism. ] (]) 16:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose''' (Responding due to a ping.) I simply cannot see the point of this request. I don't recall the previous discussion. I am Australian, and cannot recall EVER seeing or hearing the organisation referred to with "of America" as part of its name. I don't know of any other organisation known as a National Rifle Association. I'm someone who is very sensitive to American cultural domination in the world, often fighting situations where Americans act as if their version of something is the only one. (Misunderstandings of my position on this have upset American editors at times.) But this is NOT one of those situations. I see no case being made here that any confusion has ever resulted from our use of the current name. Just now I have discovered that there is a ] but, as mentioned before, I have never heard of it. It is apparently all about the use of fullbore rifles in sport shooting competitions, but doesn't even tell me what a ''fullbore'' rifle is. Yes, we have an article - ], but incredibly, it doesn't tell me either. My spellchecker thinks it's misspelt. There are more significant naming issues in this realm than sticking a seemingly redundant "of America" on the end of the name here. ] (]) 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Thankyou for your comment on ] - I have added a line describing the actual discipline to the lead of that article. | |||
*:However, the rest of the comment seems a bit strange. To say you have "never heard of another NRA" is just ]. There are many organisations with the initials "]" that I have no knowledge of, but they exist - and the articles get enough traffic that the NRA of America is no longer PRIMARYTOPIC for "NRA"! For many Australians - whether they are shooters, firearms licensing officers, or simply involved in sports administration/governance at some level, any discussion of "NRA" or "the National Rifle Association" will be a shorthand for the NRA of Australia - because what would the NRA of America have to do with Australian sport? | |||
*:Just because you ''personally'' are most familiar with the National Rifle Association of America does not invalidate the concerns over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY. Personal familiarity should not come into this when we have objective criteria against which to judge the matter. Nor does it prevent "National Rifle Association" redirecting to a correctly titled article as PRIMARYTOPIC. | |||
*:It is very strange that we are setting ourselves in opposition to ''every major encyclopaedia'', as well as authority sources like VIAF, the USLOC and the Library of Australia! ] (]) 10:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' Basically the same reasons as last time. While "...of America" appears more often now than it did in 2022, it appears that many of the "...of America" examples are recent changes and don't reflect the sources they cite. ] (]) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Proper use of firearm includes handling it safely, why do you not understand this? --] (]) 05:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
* '''Oppose''' a long-winded nomination that really only amounts to "other countries also have National Rifle Associations". Non-US press generally refers to it exclusively as the NRA. France24 does, al-Jazeera does, the Sydney Morning Herald's "NRA" section is entirely about the US group. And there is no claim that any other organization is prominent enough to challenge the primary topic here. ] (]) 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
** Furthermore, many of the arguments about usage of the name "National Rifle Association of America" are because the nom themselves changed the link text (or simplewiki article titles). This borders on a bad-faith nomination. ] (]) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:'''"Non-US press generally refers to it exclusively as the NRA. France24 does, al-Jazeera does, the Sydney Morning Herald's "NRA" section is entirely about the US group."''' | |||
*:WP:COMMONAME is explicit that even reliable press usage of ambiguous names should not overrule PRECISION and CONSISTENCY. Basically all Authority Control and other encyclopaedias use the full and proper name. What is your line of reasoning is for opposing established policy? This is basically why I reopened the discussion - the realisation that people handwaving "oh, but COMMONNAME" were actually not applying the policy correctly. ] (]) 10:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' per ], ] and ]: I don't recall ever encountering the longer form of the name of this organization. show that all other topics listed on the disambiguation page ''combined'' get about 80 page views per day over the last two years, while this one gets about . 90% traffic (even when ignoring the fact that several of those other organizations don't have a name that closely resembles this one{{snd}} e.g., there is no "National" in the names of the organizations in the Dominion of Canada, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad) is sufficient to indicate a ]. — ] (]) 22:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:As far as PRIMARYTOPIC goes, I have no problem with "National Rifle Association" redirecting to "of America". I am not proposing we move "National Rifle Association (disambiguation)" to "National Rifle Association". | |||
*:But why should CONCISE take priority over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY? Perhaps made sense when there was only one NRA article but there are now many. It's unclear why COMMONNAME should apply - if I hand you a book titled "History of the National Rifle Association", you will not know which NRA it discusses. You might ''suspect'' it will be the US entity, but you won't ''know'' - it is ambiguous. COMMONNAME caveats itself in cases of ambiguity - and Authority Controls and titles like Britannica clearly show the encyclopaedic register is to use the full name. ] (]) 09:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - ], in the last proposal it was noted that you were heading towards ] territory and what that entailed. You're doing exactly the same thing here. There's no need to constantly respond to comments, effectively saying the same thing each time just in different ways, and it can have the opposite effect you desire. ] (]) 07:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. I'm British. We have our own National Rifle Association, But I'd still think of the American one if I heard the name. Very clear common name and primary topic. -- ] (]) 12:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
::::::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
:::::::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. ] ]</font> 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
::::::::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Jim Baker (lobbyist)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== 922 g Federal gun status == | |||
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.] (]) 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
The NRA has been absolutely silent about the unconstitutional. 18. 922 g1 ] (]) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Controversy Header == | |||
:What do RS say? ] (]) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
The {controversial} heading should be added. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
:An article's talk page exists to discuss how to improve the article. This just sounds like a general complaint that the subject of the article hasn't pushed for your position on {{USCSub|18|922|g|1}} (felon disarmament). ] ] 00:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
== Suggested renaming == | |||
:Or do you mean a template warning? Please sign your posts. ] (]) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:...and why? --] (]) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
I suggest that this page could be renamed to the ‘National Rifle Association of America’, the organisation’s actual and legally registered name. This would reflect the organisation’s geographic relevance, and allow for a clearer and more efficient search. The current name would then be freed for the British NRA, which is simply legally recognised as the ‘National Rifle Association’, due to it being the original and first NRA in existence. While I’m | |||
=== Unbalanced is the word === | |||
sure in terms of relevance and effort involved people will clearly disagree with this, but I firmly believe that this would be a logical change, reflecting the respective organisations legal names. The redirect of NRA will still obviously go to the redirect page, so this would have no effect on traffic. ] (]) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I was doing some housekeeping on the ] 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. 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 ], giving it appropriate ]? Yes. The piddling ] 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. ] (]) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Do you see ]? That discussion closed nine days ago. – ] (]) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (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.--] (]) 21:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I wouldn't call it "mass tagging." I tagged four sections that need work: three in the artucle, plus the lead. We can remove the tags as we balance the sections, saving the lead for last. ] (]) 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.--] - ] 21:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 23:57, 8 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rifle Association article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 17, 2017. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
Jim Baker redirect
redirect without actual reference:
National Rifle Association (redirect from Jim Baker (lobbyist))
Requested move 22 November 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
National Rifle Association → National Rifle Association of America – National Rifle Association is unique amongst articles relating to National Rifle Associations in the title being arbitrarily abbreviated. The organisation is called the “National Rifle Association of America”, but the en.WP article title omits “of America”. In 2024, this:
- Does not conform to WP:Criteria
- Does not reflect the most common usage within WP
- Deserves re-assessment and scrutiny per WP:GLOBALISE to ensure it is not embedding systemic bias.
This proposed move will probably be more controversial than it really should be.
WP:CRITERIA
- Recognizability: The abbreviated form is only recognisable when contextualised as US/USPol. Most Authority Control sources & third party encyclopaedias use the full name, since context is not available until you start reading the entry.
- Naturalness: “of America” is not unnatural - the other articles cope with “of Australia” or “of India”. Moreover, the majority of in-body wikilinks use the full “of America” form, so editors across en.WP don't find it too objectionable.
- Link Count shows 983 indirect links (of which 962 are the "of America" redirect) versus 906 direct links. However, some 556 of the direct links are from articles transcluding the Conservatism US template. In terms of “in-body” or “organic” wikilinks , it’s something like 983 indirect versus just 350 direct. The current title is not actually that commonly used within wikipedia.
- Precision: “National Rifle Association” is imprecise and does not unambiguously define the scope. This has caused actual errors and confusion including:
- Concision: “of America” is not verbose. It might be verbose to use it repeatedly once contextualised, but not on first use or as an article title.
- Consistency: omitting “of America” is inconsistent with NRA of India/Pakistan/Australia/New Zealand/Norway. We “got away with it” when Misplaced Pages was more US-centric, but Misplaced Pages is now covers more global subjects and it deserves re-evaluation to ensure we are not embedding systemic bias.
WP:COMMONNAME
A 2022 discussion on the Talk page (which was not an RfM discussion and therefore mainly engaged involved editors) came to No Consensus for Change. Some editors cited WP:COMMONNAME when opposing the move. However, this seems to be a What First Comes to Mind interpretation as COMMONNAME is really intended for situations like Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali. Although there are exceptions where an abbreviation or acronym is used (e.g. FIFA), the only way I can see it applying here is by arguing that “the abbreviated form is what mass media use”. However, COMMONNAME is more nuanced than that:
“Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. … When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.”
(Emphasis mine). The abbreviated form is not Precise or Consistent and is ambiguous without further context. Even if it commonly used (in context) by reliable third-party sources, it is not encyclopaedic. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should look beyond the scope of what CNN or the NYT use and consider authoritative sources.
- The majority of Authority Control sources use the full “of America” including VIAF; US Library of Congress; Research Organisation Registry; National Library of Australia and IDref.
COMMONNAME also suggests looking at other encyclopaedic sources to determine what titles are in an encyclopaedic register.
- Encyclopaedia Britannica: National Rifle Association of America
- Brockhaus Enzyklopädie: National Rifle Association of America
- Geonames: National Rifle Association of America
Most non-English Wikipedias also use “of America” fr.WP, it.WP, simple.WP. Hemmers (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- What has changed since your last move request 2 years ago? "National_Rifle_Association_of_America" Springee (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Increasing globalisation, which deserves re-assessment - WP:CCC. The last discussion was a pure article talk discussion not a wider RFM, which limited contributions largely to involved editors. In light of Globalise, wider opinions should be sought.
- Declining usage of the current title vs. the "of America" redirect for in-body wikilinks. In a similar vein, NRA was recently moved back to the disambig from being a redirect, since additional global "NRAs" meant "National Rifle Association" (of America) no longer met the criteria for Primary Topic.
- An understanding that when WP:COMMONNAME was invoked in 2022, those doing so neglected to address the caveat highlighted above, and may have been citing the policy erronously on a What First Comes to Mind basis. This should have been challenged more robustly at the time. It is reasonable that the application and relevance of WP:COMMONNAME should be discussed and clarified, since the policy itself seems to explicitly oppose the current title. I hope those citing COMMONNAME this time around will address this issue and not just say "Oppose per COMMONNAME", which would be unhelpful given the clear and explicit issues presented.
- The simple fact is, the current title does not comply with WP:CRIT or WP:COMMONNAME. It just doesn't. Authority Sources, other encyclopaedias - even other Wikipedias - all agree. We're out of step.
- Hemmers (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence for those claims? Otherwise, this looks like you didn't get the answer you wanted last time so you are asking again in hopes of getting a different answer this time. On Misplaced Pages such strategies do work from time to time but it would be better if you provided better details why things have changed. Ping previous participants@Chaheel Riens, HiLo48, Bobsd, and Muboshgu:. Springee (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence for those claims?
- I have - at some effort - literally compiled an extensive critique of this article's non-compliance with established WP Policy. I must ask you to engage with the substance of the issue and not engage in what could be considered ad hominems.
- Changes - such as "National Rifle Association" being less widely used than "National Rifle Association of America" - are clearly evident in the wikilink stats (which I have listed). There was also the NRA disambig move. I have provided examples of erroneous links made to the wrong National Rifle Association. And we must remember that there was no firm consensus to "Keep" the title in 2022. It was a "No Consensus to Change", which is open-ended and accepts that there is uncertainty. If we are going to stick with a non-standard, inconsistent, non-compliant title, then we must expect it to be challenged and reconsidered periodically. Consensus can change.
- I accept that "having another go" is sometimes deployed as a poor faith strategy. I would also caution that attempting to discredit the RFM by saying "it's just sour grapes" whilst declining to engage with any of the issues raised (including subsequent changes) is also poor faith. I am sure that is not your intention and your next post will "play the ball". Hemmers (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- How many of the examples of National Rifle Association of America are ones you added/changed from National Rifle Association? The first one I investigated is the link from Ice T's article. It was added in 2014 or so as National Rifle Association (the cited reference just says NRA). You added "of America" last year . How many other redirects did you change? Did your edits significantly change the numbers? Note that I picked Ice T's article basically because it was on the list and didn't seem like the sort of article that would include the Conservativism template. Springee (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- AGREE with changing to National Rifle Association of America
- My opinion has not changed since two years ago:
- WP:CRITERIA is applicable in this case, because we already have additional articles with the text "National Rifle Association" so for precision and consistency, I think the article should be moved, and let the disambiguation page do its thing.
- Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
- Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
- Here are the current Misplaced Pages articles containing the text "National Rifle Association" .
- They all contain the country name, which makes sense since "National" needs to point to "which nation" as soon as there is more than one.
- What can possibly wrong with being MORE accurate AND consistent ???
- National Rifle Association Note: we don't have to use the full name ... because "we" are America? :)
- National Rifle Association (United Kingdom)
- National Rifle Association of Norway
- National Rifle Association of India
- National Rifle Association of New Zealand
- National Rifle Association of Australia
- National Rifle Association of Pakistan
- Here is Britannica:
- National Rifle Association (British organization) includes: National Rifle Association of America: …NRA was modeled after the National Rifle Association in Great Britain, which had been formed in 1859.
- National Rifle Association of America (NRA) (United States organization) National Rifle Association of America (NRA), leading gun rights organization in the United States. The NRA was founded as a governing body ...
- Here is the copyright notice on the bottom of every webpage at the www.nra.org (where you need to be accurate for © )
- © 2024 National Rifle Association of America.
- • Bobsd • (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence for those claims? Otherwise, this looks like you didn't get the answer you wanted last time so you are asking again in hopes of getting a different answer this time. On Misplaced Pages such strategies do work from time to time but it would be better if you provided better details why things have changed. Ping previous participants@Chaheel Riens, HiLo48, Bobsd, and Muboshgu:. Springee (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing has changed since the discussion two years ago. "National Rifle Association" is the WP:COMMONNAME in press reports. It is more WP:CONCISE without "of America", and is WP:PRECISE enough without the extra disambiguation. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why doesn't this apply?
- Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Hemmers (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because it's not ambiguous or inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- It literally is ambiguous, and I have provided examples where users have wikilinked to the wrong article! Moreover, global notability has diluted enough that it lost PT on NRA. There are also far more articles linking to the full "...of America" redirect than the base title (by a ~3:1 ratio, excluding the Conservatism US template). The current title is inconsistent & imprecise - unless we're contending that all the major Authority Control sources and third party encyclopaedias are wrong, or excessively pedantic? It feels like a Seymour Skinner "no, the children are wrong" position to be in! Hemmers (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- How many of those are articles that you changed? Springee (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this link will look the same for everyone but I selected the "...of America" (see (of which 962 are the "of America" redirect) above). I then selected 500 entries per page, selected the second page then reviewed the first 15 articles listed. All 15 were recently changed, after the 2022 move request, to link to "...of America" vs without. I think it's safe to say very few articles were originally written as "of America". It's only a question of how many. Most of the articles are about Americans so the NRA context would be clear. In every case I checked, which wasn't many, the source didn't specify "of America". Sometime it just said NRA. Springee (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- How many of those are articles that you changed? Springee (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- It literally is ambiguous, and I have provided examples where users have wikilinked to the wrong article! Moreover, global notability has diluted enough that it lost PT on NRA. There are also far more articles linking to the full "...of America" redirect than the base title (by a ~3:1 ratio, excluding the Conservatism US template). The current title is inconsistent & imprecise - unless we're contending that all the major Authority Control sources and third party encyclopaedias are wrong, or excessively pedantic? It feels like a Seymour Skinner "no, the children are wrong" position to be in! Hemmers (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because it's not ambiguous or inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu, Actually, here are the stats from a google search:
- "National Rifle Assocation" = 2,470,000
- "NRA" = 43,800,000
- By your criteria of frequency used in the cloud, the name of the article should be changed to "NRA"
- • Bobsd • (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I support the change mainly because I can not see any downside to being more accurate in the naming of the article. Yes, most people in the US and even globally refer to the organization as the "NRA", or less commonly take the time to say "National Rifle Association" , and fewer still would get out the mouthful "National Rifle Association of America" ... unless the person being addressed was confused, and qualification was needed. Say when speaking to someone in the UK. We are not supposed to be US-centric. So why not just be accurate and call the article by the same name that the organization itself uses?
- When someone visits Misplaced Pages, and starts typing "National Rifle Association ..." all the articles will show in the list, and they can choose from there. No problem. Also consider, if we are stuck on the most commonly found reference to the organization, that would be "NRA" So why are those opposed to making the title more accurate, not pushing for changing the title to "NRA", which as a search term, doesn't even pull up the any of the National Rifle Association articles.
- I'm a retired CSQE where more accurate (less ambiguous) was never considered a problem in any way ... ambiguous requirements gets you planes falling out of the sky. Almost every point @Hemmers has made seems to be met with a yes, but WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE without addressing why they should have priority over WP:PRECISION and WP:CONSISTENT.
- I have nothing more I feel I can add to this discussion. • Bobsd • (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
mainly engaged involved editors- I've only ever edited the article once to revert vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose (Responding due to a ping.) I simply cannot see the point of this request. I don't recall the previous discussion. I am Australian, and cannot recall EVER seeing or hearing the organisation referred to with "of America" as part of its name. I don't know of any other organisation known as a National Rifle Association. I'm someone who is very sensitive to American cultural domination in the world, often fighting situations where Americans act as if their version of something is the only one. (Misunderstandings of my position on this have upset American editors at times.) But this is NOT one of those situations. I see no case being made here that any confusion has ever resulted from our use of the current name. Just now I have discovered that there is a National Rifle Association of Australia but, as mentioned before, I have never heard of it. It is apparently all about the use of fullbore rifles in sport shooting competitions, but doesn't even tell me what a fullbore rifle is. Yes, we have an article - Fullbore rifle, but incredibly, it doesn't tell me either. My spellchecker thinks it's misspelt. There are more significant naming issues in this realm than sticking a seemingly redundant "of America" on the end of the name here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your comment on Fullbore rifle - I have added a line describing the actual discipline to the lead of that article.
- However, the rest of the comment seems a bit strange. To say you have "never heard of another NRA" is just WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT. There are many organisations with the initials "NRA" that I have no knowledge of, but they exist - and the articles get enough traffic that the NRA of America is no longer PRIMARYTOPIC for "NRA"! For many Australians - whether they are shooters, firearms licensing officers, or simply involved in sports administration/governance at some level, any discussion of "NRA" or "the National Rifle Association" will be a shorthand for the NRA of Australia - because what would the NRA of America have to do with Australian sport?
- Just because you personally are most familiar with the National Rifle Association of America does not invalidate the concerns over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY. Personal familiarity should not come into this when we have objective criteria against which to judge the matter. Nor does it prevent "National Rifle Association" redirecting to a correctly titled article as PRIMARYTOPIC.
- It is very strange that we are setting ourselves in opposition to every major encyclopaedia, as well as authority sources like VIAF, the USLOC and the Library of Australia! Hemmers (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Basically the same reasons as last time. While "...of America" appears more often now than it did in 2022, it appears that many of the "...of America" examples are recent changes and don't reflect the sources they cite. Springee (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose a long-winded nomination that really only amounts to "other countries also have National Rifle Associations". Non-US press generally refers to it exclusively as the NRA. France24 does, al-Jazeera does, the Sydney Morning Herald's "NRA" section is entirely about the US group. And there is no claim that any other organization is prominent enough to challenge the primary topic here. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, many of the arguments about usage of the name "National Rifle Association of America" are because the nom themselves changed the link text (or simplewiki article titles). This borders on a bad-faith nomination. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Non-US press generally refers to it exclusively as the NRA. France24 does, al-Jazeera does, the Sydney Morning Herald's "NRA" section is entirely about the US group."
- WP:COMMONAME is explicit that even reliable press usage of ambiguous names should not overrule PRECISION and CONSISTENCY. Basically all Authority Control and other encyclopaedias use the full and proper name. What is your line of reasoning is for opposing established policy? This is basically why I reopened the discussion - the realisation that people handwaving "oh, but COMMONNAME" were actually not applying the policy correctly. Hemmers (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE: I don't recall ever encountering the longer form of the name of this organization. Pageview statistics show that all other topics listed on the disambiguation page combined get about 80 page views per day over the last two years, while this one gets about 9 times that many. 90% traffic (even when ignoring the fact that several of those other organizations don't have a name that closely resembles this one – e.g., there is no "National" in the names of the organizations in the Dominion of Canada, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad) is sufficient to indicate a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- As far as PRIMARYTOPIC goes, I have no problem with "National Rifle Association" redirecting to "of America". I am not proposing we move "National Rifle Association (disambiguation)" to "National Rifle Association".
- But why should CONCISE take priority over PRECISION or CONSISTENCY? Perhaps made sense when there was only one NRA article but there are now many. It's unclear why COMMONNAME should apply - if I hand you a book titled "History of the National Rifle Association", you will not know which NRA it discusses. You might suspect it will be the US entity, but you won't know - it is ambiguous. COMMONNAME caveats itself in cases of ambiguity - and Authority Controls and titles like Britannica clearly show the encyclopaedic register is to use the full name. Hemmers (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Hemmers, in the last proposal it was noted that you were heading towards WP:BADGER territory and what that entailed. You're doing exactly the same thing here. There's no need to constantly respond to comments, effectively saying the same thing each time just in different ways, and it can have the opposite effect you desire. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm British. We have our own National Rifle Association, But I'd still think of the American one if I heard the name. Very clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
"Jim Baker (lobbyist)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Jim Baker (lobbyist) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § Jim Baker (lobbyist) until a consensus is reached. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
922 g Federal gun status
The NRA has been absolutely silent about the unconstitutional. 18. 922 g1 2600:1009:B160:8E9:F87A:DFD5:BCD9:69DD (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- An article's talk page exists to discuss how to improve the article. This just sounds like a general complaint that the subject of the article hasn't pushed for your position on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon disarmament). SilverLocust 💬 00:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Suggested renaming
I suggest that this page could be renamed to the ‘National Rifle Association of America’, the organisation’s actual and legally registered name. This would reflect the organisation’s geographic relevance, and allow for a clearer and more efficient search. The current name would then be freed for the British NRA, which is simply legally recognised as the ‘National Rifle Association’, due to it being the original and first NRA in existence. While I’m sure in terms of relevance and effort involved people will clearly disagree with this, but I firmly believe that this would be a logical change, reflecting the respective organisations legal names. The redirect of NRA will still obviously go to the redirect page, so this would have no effect on traffic. J.Weir3 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do you see #Requested move 22 November 2024? That discussion closed nine days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Firearms articles
- High-importance Firearms articles
- WikiProject Firearms articles
- B-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Mid-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class gun politics articles
- High-importance gun politics articles
- Gun politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Selected anniversaries (November 2017)