ScrapIronIV (talk | contribs) |
ScrapIronIV (talk | contribs) →Best and most reputable authoritative sources use "gun rights": Ping, formatting |
||
Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
::This article isn't about the U.S. Bill of Rights, it's about an organization that is known primarily for its gun-rights politics. There are sources within the article that support calling the NRA a gun-rights organization. One of these was used in a previous gun-rights lead. I have restored it, plus the six sources given above. [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
::This article isn't about the U.S. Bill of Rights, it's about an organization that is known primarily for its gun-rights politics. There are sources within the article that support calling the NRA a gun-rights organization. One of these was used in a previous gun-rights lead. I have restored it, plus the six sources given above. [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::{{u|ScrapIronIV}}, regarding this edit - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&curid=70101&diff=665666135&oldid=665659706] - you say you've provided sources. Where are these sources you've provided that are better than the half-dozen I provided? [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
::{{u|ScrapIronIV}}, regarding this edit - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&curid=70101&diff=665666135&oldid=665659706] - you say you've provided sources. Where are these sources you've provided that are better than the half-dozen I provided? [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Your sources do not refute the original claim. Your edit removed clarity, and removed a Wikilink. Why is vague wording, and loss of the wikilink, preferable here? Unless, of course, there is something which underlies the choice of wording? You appear to be saying the same thing that I am, but offering less actual information. '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#306b1e">Scr<span style="background:#0404B4;border-radius:7px;color:#FFFFFF">★</span>pIron</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#6E6E6E">IV</span>]]</sup>''' 20:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
:::{{u|Lightbreather}} Your sources do not refute the original claim. Your edit removed clarity, and removed a Wikilink. Why is vague wording, and loss of the wikilink, preferable here? Unless, of course, there is something which underlies the choice of wording? You appear to be saying the same thing that I am, but offering less actual information. '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#306b1e">Scr<span style="background:#0404B4;border-radius:7px;color:#FFFFFF">★</span>pIron</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#6E6E6E">IV</span>]]</sup>''' 20:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:37, 5 June 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Endorsements
Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following...
- "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."[1]"
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?
References
- ^ CALMES, JACKIE (JACKIE). "N.R.A. Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy". New York Times. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)
Should we lead the gun industry contributions paragraph with "A considerable amount [of money] comes from the gun industry"?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I feel this is WP:EDITORIALIZING; the numbers are right there in the next sentence, and speak for themselves. I also feel the word "considerable" may add too much weight to the numbers from the industry - ~$40M over ~5 years to an organization with a budget of ~$200M/year is ~4%. If I made 4% of my money from basket weaving, I'd hesitate to describe that as "considerable", especially in the encyclopedia's voice. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I thought the phrasing I suggested originally, "a portion", was fine. Using "considerable" in this context is vague when we have numbers and I agree that its unnecessary WP:EDITORIALIZING when simple language would suffice. That said, and I'll say it again, how the reference states it is broad and general, no accurate math can be accomplished without further information which starts us down a slippery slope towards WP:SYNTH. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Name | Year | Income in Millions | Expenses in Millions |
---|---|---|---|
National Rifle Association (NRA) | 2011[1] | 218.9 | 231.0 |
NRA Institute for Legislative Action | n/a | n/a | n/a |
NRA Civil Defense Fund | 2012[2] | 1.6 | 1.0 |
NRA Civil Defense Fund | 2013[3] | 1.3 | 0.9 |
NRA Foundation | 2012[4] | 43.0 | 29.1 |
NRA Foundation | 2013[5] | 41.3 | 31.4 |
NRA Freedom Action Foundation | 2012[6] | 2.1 | 2.3 |
NRA Freedom Action Foundation | 2013[7] | 0.5 | 0.1 |
NRA Political Victory Fund | 2012[8] | 14.4 | 16.1 |
NRA Political Victory Fund | 2014[9] | 21.9 | 20.7 |
NRA Special Contribution Fund | 2012[10] | 3.3 | 3.1 |
NRA Special Contribution Fund | 2013[11] | 4.3 | 3.6 |
- This is how the first two paragraphs of the "Finances" section appear now:
- A considerable amount comes from the gun industry,[12][14][13][15] which the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."[16] Since 2005, the NRA has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[13] ....
- How about this instead?
- Over half of the NRA's income is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising; less than half is from membership dues and program fees.[12][13] A considerable amount comes from the gun industry,[12][14][13][15] which the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."[16]
- Since 2005, the NRA has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[13] ....
- This way, the sentence that concerns you would not lead the gun industry contribution paragraph, but end the section's brief lead graf about the sources of its income in general. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- ^ "Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax - 2011" (PDF). foundationcenter.org. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-05-29. Retrieved 2014-06-02.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ McGladrey, LLP (2013-09-16). "NRA Civil Defense Fund" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ McGladrey, LLP (2014-11-05). "NRA Civil Defense Fund" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ McGladrey, LLP (2013-10-04). "NRA Foundation" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ McGladrey, LLP (2014-11-05). "NRA Foundation" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ McGladrey, LLP (2013-09-27). "NRA Freedom Action Foundation" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ McGladrey, LLP (2014-11-05). "NRA Freedom Action Foundation" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ "National Rifle Assn Spending by Cycle: 2012 PAC Summary Data". opensecrets.org. Center for Responsible Politics. 2015. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ "National Rifle Assn Spending by Cycle: 2014 PAC Summary Data". opensecrets.org. Center for Responsible Politics. 2015. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ McGladrey, LLP (2013-09-16). "NRA Special Contribution Fund" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ McGladrey, LLP (2014-11-05). "NRA Special Contribution Fund" (PDF). guidestar.org. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
- ^ a b c d Hickey, Walter (2013-01-16). "How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA". Business Insider. Retrieved 2014-06-05.
The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.
- ^ a b c d e f Robison, Peter; Crewdson, John (2011-12-28). "NRA Raises $200 Million as Gun Lobby Toasters Burn Logo on Bread". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2013-01-30.
Combined, sources such as fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties produced about $115 million in 2010, just over half the NRA's $227.8 million in income, according to the group's tax return. Most of the rest, about $100.5 million, came from membership dues.
- ^ a b "National Rifle Association Receives Millions of Dollars From Gun Industry 'Corporate Partners' New VPC Report Reveals" (Press release). Violence Policy Center. 2011-04-13.
... since 2005 contributions from gun industry 'corporate partners' to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. ... The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from 'corporate partners' come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.
- ^ a b "Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries?". FactCheck.org. 2013-01-15.
... gun manufacturers are major contributors to the NRA. Smith & Wesson in May became a member of the NRA's 'Golden Ring of Freedom,' which is for donors who contribute more than $1 million. In 2008, the Beretta Group — another 'Golden Ring of Freedom' member — exceeded $2 million in donations.
- ^ a b "Firearms Industry Trade Association: NSSF". nssf.org. National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-02-11. Retrieved 2014-06-05.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
- I'd suggest deleting "considerable" & simply say "a portion comes from the firearms industry", then "$14.8 mil since 2005", & let the reader figure it out; I'm unclear how "10000 members" makes any difference, in context of NRA (as opposed to firearms industry). My $0.02. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- No. Still WP:UNDUE, and still editorializing. Industry funding should be its own paragraph, not part of the lead. It's not a majority of the funding, or even a plurality, so it doesn't make any sense to put it in the lead paragraph unless we're intentionally trying to imply otherwise. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no objection to it being moved further down; it's the weight given "considerable" & the disconnect between industry & number of members I object to. (And that's not a huge deal for me, really.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- No. Still WP:UNDUE, and still editorializing. Industry funding should be its own paragraph, not part of the lead. It's not a majority of the funding, or even a plurality, so it doesn't make any sense to put it in the lead paragraph unless we're intentionally trying to imply otherwise. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Lightbreather:, by my count we have 3 people (me, Trekphiler, and Scalhotrod saying "considerable" is no good, and that "portion" is more neutral. Feels like a consensus to me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Faceless Enemy: Did you have this discussion listed anywhere? Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. Didn't see the need. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"Considerable" discussion at NPOVN
I have started a discussion at WP:NPOVN re this question: National Rifle Association finances. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Should we include a fact about the size of the NSSF in the Finances section?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I feel that including the fact about the membership of the NSSF is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure what the statement adds to the article - they are two separate organizations, and leaving it in there implies that they are somehow connected. We wouldn't drop random facts about NARAL membership in an article about Planned Parenthood either. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, This article is about the NRA. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- The original paragraph said:
- Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.[1] According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the industry has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."[2]
- Then Faceless Enemy deleted the source for the first two sentences, replacing it with a citation-needed take, and removing the third sentence altogether,[1] leaving this in the original's place:
- Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees. The majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising, and the firearms industry.[citation needed]
- Faceless Enemy's edit summary was "Removed poor source, removed undue weight (irrelevant?) statement".
- Business Insider is not a "poor source," and what Hickey had written (in part) was this:
- In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
- While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.
- The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, MUCH OF IT originating from gun INDUSTRY SOURCES. (Emphasis mine)
- A good writer tries to predict her readers' questions. Here are a couple I might have after reading the above: What makes up the gun industry? How big is it? Therefore, I gave the NSSF - the major trade association for the firearms industry - info. Lightbreather (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- And a better writer tries to predict their reader's questions and then edit their text accordingly for clarity. But we also have the benefit of Wikilinks, so redundant or unnecessary information can be left out. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the entire sentence is necessary or helpful. Include a link to the firearms industry somewhere in the paragraph and be done with it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- After the discussion above, Discussion of wording of opening paragraph of Finances section, plus some BRD, we ended up with this:
- Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.[1]
- A considerable amount comes from the gun industry,[1] which the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."[2] Since 2005....
- ^ a b c Hickey, Walter (2013-01-16). "How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA". Business Insider. Retrieved 2014-06-05.
- ^ a b "Firearms Industry Trade Association: NSSF". nssf.org. National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-02-11. Retrieved 2014-06-05.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
- That was March 10. Then, Faceless Enemy started making the same changes on March 31. Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Lightbreather: again, by my count we have 3 editors (me, Scalhotrod, and Trekphiler) saying this is undue or irrelevant, and one (you) saying it should be left in there. Feels like a consensus to me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Faceless Enemy: Did you have this discussion listed anywhere? Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. Didn't see the need. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Gun industry/NSSF discussion at NPOVN
I have started a discussion at WP:NPOVN re this question: National Rifle Association finances. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how involving a different forum is going to support keeping a factoid made by a completely different organization so that it can be combined with an editorial comment, is going to help. Combining Hickey and the NSSF refs is starting to look more and more like WP:SYNTH. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- We're now up to four editors saying it's synthesis or undue. After correcting the sentence in question to reflect the source it's even more obvious. I'm planning to file a request for closure on this tomorrow. It has been almost a month since the discussion was opened and over a week since the NPOVN discussion was started. [Ping all editors involved so far: Lightbreather, Scalhotrod, Ca2james, Trekphiler] Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a request for closure at AN/RFC. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wording of lead sentence
I have started a discussion at the Everytown for Gun Safety talk page on how to begin that article. The discussion significantly involves this article's lead as well. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The following changes[2][3] were made to Everytown for Gun Safety, based on the discussion cited above, and on the argument that "gun control" is a more neutral way to say "gun violence prevention."
- For that reason, I made the following changes to this article.[4][5] The term "gun rights" is more neutral than "the right to keep and bear arms," and the entire lead was sourced to NRA sources. Scalhotrod has reverted the edits.[6]
- The edits that were reverted were an improvement to the lead, just as the edits at Everytown for Gun Safety were improvements - born of discussion. I propose that we restore those improvements. Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The term gun rights seems ambiguous, and less neutral than civil rights; since constitutional language uses the term arms. In the context of gay rights or equal rights, gun rights would seem to imply guns have rights; and despite rulings that corporations are people, similar status has yet to be applied to firearms. Thewellman (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The term "gun rights" Is used by the preponderance of neutral V, RS. Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- ♠I'm not at all sure "gun control" is more neutral than "gun violence reduction", since gun control commonly targets law-abiding citizens & control of violence (one presumes) would target criminal activity.
- ♠As for "gun rights", I'm not sure that's exactly neutral, either; "gun owner's rights" seems more like it. (Yes, I know, that's not a term found hardly anywhere...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Civil rights" is too ambiguous too - depending on who you ask, it could encompass everything from voting rights to free speech to gun rights to...well, you name it. We definitely need to be specific that the NRA is (mostly) about RKBA, rather than, say, about privacy rights or voting rights (though of course when those touch on gun rights they definitely care). Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
For now, if that's the only thing holding us up, can we go with "gun rights"? I'd like to remove the quotes from both this article and the Everytown article - the more I look at them, the more they feel like puffery. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to the term gun rights. The whole "gun violence" thing is a dodge by gun control groups who realized that changing gun control (somethign people opposed) to preventing "gun violence" was a good PR move because who would be against reducing violence? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Suggestion - How about... "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization founded in 1871 in New York by journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate to promote marksmanship within the United States military. Since then the organization has gone through several transformations as well as expanded its purpose and goals." and then we simply describe the organization from there? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No. The lead paragraph, especially the lead sentence, should be about what the NRA is and does, not what it was and did:
- The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I like Scalhotrod's suggestion. Since this is an encyclopedia, what the NRA was and did is still as important as what it is and does. We should be taking a historic view in the opening line of the lead, rather than a present day view. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I also like Scalhotrod's proposal. Ignoring the history in the lead smacks of recentism. As for "gun rights", while I'm not thrilled with it, I could live with it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's my take on using "gun rights", "gun control" or any of the buzz phrases in the Lead. It smacks of POV, from either side. This is an organization with over a 140 year history. Focusing on the last few years, or decades for that matter, in the Lead and especially the first sentence is just lousy writing IMO in addition a poor representation of the subject. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, the preponderance of WP:V, reliable WP:SECONDARY sources use "gun control" and "gun rights." Here are a few books:
- Carter, Gregg Lee, ed. (2012). "National Rifle Association (NRA)". Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 616–620. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. Retrieved 2014-06-06.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the nation's largest, oldest, and most politically powerful interest group that opposes gun laws and favors gun rights.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - Carter, Greg Lee (2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 285. ISBN 9781851097609.
Almost all of [the groups listed] are readily classifiable as either advocating a 'gun control' or a 'gun rights' position.
- Knox, Neal (2009). Knox, Christopher (ed.). Neal Knox: The Gun Rights War. MacFarlane Press. p. 159.
One of the few advantages - possibly the only advantage - that supporters of gun rights hold is the fact that there are more one-issue voters on the pro-gun side than on the anti-gun side.
- Patterson, Samuel C.; Eakins, Keith R. (1998). "Congress and Gun Control". In Bruce, John M.; Wilcox, Clyde (eds.). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. OCLC 833118449. Retrieved 2014-04-08.
During the gun control legislation battles of the 1960s, the NRA, although it had no registered lobbyists, was the most powerful gun rights organization. It still enjoys this distinction, although it has undergone significant change.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - Utter, Glenn H. Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. Grey House. ISBN 9781592376728.
- Wellford, Charles F; Pepper, John V; Petrie, Carol V, eds. (2013) [Print ed. 2005]. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Electronic ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. p. 283. ISBN 0-309-54640-0.
Another commentator pointed out, however, that a significant number of the articles supporting the individual right model published between 1970 and 1989 were written by lawyers who had either been employed by or who represented gun rights organizations, including the NRA.
- Carter, Gregg Lee, ed. (2012). "National Rifle Association (NRA)". Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 616–620. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. Retrieved 2014-06-06.
- Note especially that first one - the latest edition of Guns in American Society. The quote I gave is the lead sentence of that encyclopedia's entry for the National Rifle Association. It is also worth noting that it doesn't mention the NRA's early history until after two long paragraphs about its organizational make-up and programs, and especially its "enduring political clout." Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Use of the term gun rights in sources is of secondary importance to the allegedly improved neutrality of the term in comparison to the right to keep and bear arms. The United States Bill of Rights from which the allegedly non-neutral term originates, identifies only five rights in its ten amendments: The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the 1st amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures in the 4th amendment, the right to a speedy and public trial in the 6th amendment, and the right of trial by jury in the 7th amendment. A majority of sources paraphrasing the rights enumerated by the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States use the term right to keep and bear arms in preference to gun rights. Thewellman (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's not an entirely accurate summary. For example, the 6th, through the use of commas, provides a list of enumerated rights, including the right to confront witnesses, to be informed of charges, assistance of counsel etc. additionally, the BoR recognizes the some rights pre-exist.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- None of the terms are interchangeable. "Gun rights" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are different, in that RKBA encompasses (or has encompassed) everything from crossbows to swords to firearms. "Gun rights" only covers guns. "Gun violence prevention" is also broader than "gun control". There are some programs like this one (funded by Bloomberg) that have explicitly been designed to reduce murders (and thus can be called "GVP"), but are not gun control. (Another point of contention is that gun rights advocates argue that gun control doesn't prevent gun violence, so we need to be careful how we phrase things in the encyclopedia's voice. GVP is usually used as a euphemism for GC.) Yeesh. The NRA is best known (in secondary sources) for its advocacy of gun rights though, so I don't see a huge issue with leading with that here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Scalhotrod, most articles I've seen start with the organization's current status, rather than its history (e.g. Catholic Church). Do you have examples of other articles that start with the history of an org? Is there a clear guideline in WP policy (or MOS or whatever) that addresses this? Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Catholic Church example is a good one, but I'd like to point out several key distinctions. First off, its an old enough institution that a separate History of the Catholic Church article exists, which makes the main article in reality The current status of the Catholic Church or maybe A summary of the Catholic Church, this is not the case for the NRA. We have a single article that is trying to address its entire history along with its cumulative activities, so the Lead needs to reflect that. Second, with all of the various controversy involving the Church, none of it mentioned until the last paragraph. Third, it's Lead 1st sentence is fairly generic simply stating that its the largest organization of its type and how many members it has. I would be fine with something similar, "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is a nonprofit organization with 5 million members." But quite frankly, that seems too simplistic and not terribly descriptive or informative.
- Furthermore, if we take a clinical look at what they do today, its a variety of things that range from publishing and multi-media (television, internet, etc.) to training and certification programs to historical preservation along with lobbying and other political activities. So to describe the organization in the 1st sentence using any kind of phrase that includes "gun control", gun rights", or the like is just bad writing and purposely ignoring significant parts of the article, hence my original suggestion for the Lead first sentence. At the very least, I don't see why the first sentence can't just be generically descriptive. Maybe something like...
- "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is a nonprofit organization that primarily serves as an advocate for firearm related issues and activities. Originally founded in 1871 in New York by journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate to promote marksmanship within the United States military, the organization has gone through several transformations as well as expanded its purpose and goals. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it has become one of the largest and most influential lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. as well as a large, multi-title magazine publisher; an advocate for hunters and outdoors-people, and a preservationist of hunting lands; and one of the largest firearm training and certification program operators in the U.S."
- That said, I will try to find other examples, but given this list (Category:501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations) it does not seem difficult to find an article with a Lead first sentence like I've described. By the way, I'm advocating for a rewrite of the ENTIRE WP:Lead, not just the 1st sentence. I think that Policy is fairly clear, but IMO to adhere to it properly in this case Editor's need, to quote the WP:Lead page, a specialized understanding of the subject in order to write it in a NPOV manner that a non-specialist will understand. This is something beyond what a magazine subscription or occasional mailing will provide. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the mission statement stuff. Better than nothing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Best and most reputable authoritative sources use "gun rights"
Per WP:NPOV Good research, we're supposed to use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Here are six and they all use the term "gun rights" to describe the NRA's primary focus.
- Carter, Gregg Lee, ed. (2012). "National Rifle Association (NRA)". Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 616–620. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1. Retrieved 2014-06-06.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the nation's largest, oldest, and most politically powerful interest group that opposes gun laws and favors gun rights.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - Carter, Greg Lee (2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 285. ISBN 9781851097609.
Almost all of [the groups listed] are readily classifiable as either advocating a 'gun control' or a 'gun rights' position.
- Knox, Neal (2009). Knox, Christopher (ed.). Neal Knox: The Gun Rights War. MacFarlane Press. p. 159.
One of the few advantages - possibly the only advantage - that supporters of gun rights hold is the fact that there are more one-issue voters on the pro-gun side than on the anti-gun side.
- Patterson, Samuel C.; Eakins, Keith R. (1998). "Congress and Gun Control". In Bruce, John M.; Wilcox, Clyde (eds.). The Changing Politics of Gun Control. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. OCLC 833118449. Retrieved 2014-04-08.
During the gun control legislation battles of the 1960s, the NRA, although it had no registered lobbyists, was the most powerful gun rights organization. It still enjoys this distinction, although it has undergone significant change.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - Utter, Glenn H. Encyclopedia of Gun Control and Gun Rights. Grey House. ISBN 9781592376728.
- Wellford, Charles F; Pepper, John V; Petrie, Carol V, eds. (2013) [Print ed. 2005]. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Electronic ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. p. 283. ISBN 0-309-54640-0.
Another commentator pointed out, however, that a significant number of the articles supporting the individual right model published between 1970 and 1989 were written by lawyers who had either been employed by or who represented gun rights organizations, including the NRA.
As I said over two weeks ago, note especially that first source - the latest (2012) edition of Guns in American Society. The quote given is the lead sentence of that encyclopedia's entry for the National Rifle Association. It is also worth noting that it doesn't mention the NRA's early history until after two long paragraphs about its organizational make-up and programs, and especially its "enduring political clout."
Although several editors have expressed their opinions here, no-one has given stronger reputable authoritative sources. (Actually, no-one has given any.) Per the preponderance of best-quality WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS the lead sentence should use the term "gun rights" and not the POV "right to keep and bear arms." Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The historic significance of the right to keep and bear arms is beyond contestation in the United States. Guns do not have rights; people do. The article being linked to is "Right to keep and bear arms in the United States." It is entirely appropriate to describe that link as such, unless someone is actively trying to push specific wording that would dilute it. The source in place for that sentence in the lede does not mention the phrase "gun rights" - yet it does refer to the Constitutional right. The NRA refers to their defense of the Second Amendment as part of their history. It would be disengenous to use the term "gun rights" in the first sentence of the article. Scr★pIronIV 17:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- This article isn't about the U.S. Bill of Rights, it's about an organization that is known primarily for its gun-rights politics. There are sources within the article that support calling the NRA a gun-rights organization. One of these was used in a previous gun-rights lead. I have restored it, plus the six sources given above. Lightbreather (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- ScrapIronIV, regarding this edit - [7] - you say you've provided sources. Where are these sources you've provided that are better than the half-dozen I provided? Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Lightbreather Your sources do not refute the original claim. Your edit removed clarity, and removed a Wikilink. Why is vague wording, and loss of the wikilink, preferable here? Unless, of course, there is something which underlies the choice of wording? You appear to be saying the same thing that I am, but offering less actual information. Scr★pIronIV 20:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)