Talk:National Shooting Sports Foundation

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

Firearms Low‑importance

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

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Rewrite of 'Industry and NSSF history' section

I think I detect a good faith two-step effort to improve the article here. Unfortunately I had to revert (reverse) it because it took two wrong steps compounding the problem and leaving an unacceptable result.

First, there was a rewrite of the paragraph. It sounded reasonable if maybe a little watering-down. The big problem was it strayed considerably from the article originally cited for the paragraph. I think -- having done the paragraph -- that the original at least reasonably well reflected the source material (even if maybe it wasn't thorough or specific enough).

Second, the editor realized that the section now didn't reflect the source material, I surmise, so went back in and removed the footnote.

The encyclopedia needs sources for all its contents so removing the footnote doesn't solve the problem. If the paragraph needs the rewrite, and I accept the possibility it does, then a "better" or additional source has to be found. If there's a way to accommodate both sources, using the additional source for the necessary refinement while leaving most of the original intact, that of course makes the original editor happier but often I think will also better address the subject (unless the first source is complete trash; which it didn't seem to me to be). For instance, if the second source were the NSSF website (seems possible and OK), it would be much preferable not to lose the independent media source. Outright mistakes in the first source can of course be corrected but with care. (The journalists, editors and publishers of that piece have put it out there; if it hasn't been corrected there, it basically stands.) Differing emphases? In general, I think the encyclo. benefits from them and removal I find unfortunate.

Clear enough for starters? Hope so. Queries/rebuttals welcome. I'll check back here. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Shooting Sports Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20140620185711/http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/19/6496009_firearms-industry-thanks-us-sen.html to http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/19/6496009_firearms-industry-thanks-us-sen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian article " ‘Even more insidious than the NRA’: US gun lobby group gains in power"

[1]. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]