Talk:AR-15–style rifle

Wound characteristics

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.

Non-admin closure Closing this down with Reject per RfC in Reliable Sources noticeboard. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

I'd like to include the following text:

• The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”

References

You are making a lot of assumption on its relevance. Comparing a rifle with a hand gun is not relavent to this article. it is common knowledge that a rifle is more powerful than a hand gun. You are also making a very specific claims with velocity, it is just on the high end with a very spicific barrel length, and most rifles have this speed and beyond. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons. It would also seem to appear you are asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured.-72bikers (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I expected no less. So a NYT article that explains the wounds from this rifle specifically is not in scope. Amazing. Farcaster (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• For those interested in comparing velocity changes to barrel length, I invite attention to |this article. It should also be noted that similar velocity decreases may be observed as distance to target increases. It may be informative to compare muzzle velocity of other AR-15 or handgun cartridges to the short-barrel velocities reported in this article. Thewellman (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include: obviously relevant to the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The comments of the original poster is someone who is here to WP:RGW (based on edit summary comments here [[1]] and the reply above). This isn't an article about ammunition or ballistics. Additionally, is there anything that suggests the wounds here are notably different than those made by a varmint or deer rifle? Why not just link to an article about the ballistics of the round instead? Springee (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, I expected no less. The NYT interviewed several trauma surgeons about the impact of being shot by an AR-15. Yet somehow that isn't relevant? There are about 4-5 of you that seem to aggressively patrol these articles and make sure factual content doesn't get included. I hope some heavy-duty administrators spot you guys and read you the riot act.Farcaster (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not about the AR-15 style rifle. It may be relevant to the article describing the 5.56×45mm NATO -- one of the many cartridges fired by this type of rifle and by many other rifles. Thewellman (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Rereading the source it explicitly says the rifles, not the ammo. One reason is (as I understand it) things like muzzle velocity are also affected by barrel length and other features that are a part of the gun, not the ammo.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• SupportRelevant and reliably sourced. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per what has been said on Talk:Assault rifle and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It's a very POV proposal that doesn't even accurately reflect what the article in NYT actually says. And A) wound characteristics depend on which cartridge/caliber has been used, not on what type of weapon that has been used, and B) AR-15 style rifles come in several different calibers, with different bullet diameter, bullet weight and bullet velocity, and widely varying wound characteristics. This type of information should be in articles about specific cartridges/calibers, not in an article like this, which is about a type of firearm. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W, as a matter of fact, wound characteristics depend on which cartridge/caliber has been used, not on what type of weapon that has been used is a false statement. Among other effects the muzzle velocity does depend on the type of weapon (mainly, the length of the barrel) and therefore so do the wound characteristics. So if that's what your opposition to this is based on, you might want to rethink it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: Que? Virtually all types of firearms, from AR-15-style rifles, bolt-action rifles, lever-action rifles, pump-action rifles and single-shot rifles to handguns, can be had with barrels in different lengths. In most cases the other types of rifles I mentioned in fact have longer barrels than AR-15 style rifles (16-20" for AR-15 style rifles, 20-26" for the others...). So how about thinking before typing? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply disputing the assertion you made: wound characteristics depend on which cartridge/caliber has been used, not on what type of weapon that has been used. On the contrary, wound characteristics depend on cartridge/caliber and weapon type. Also, please be careful about moving other people's comments around - you messed up the formatting. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: No, it does not depend on weapon type since all of the different kinds of weapons I listed can have barrels that are at least as long as the barrel of an AR-15 style rifle, and thus can be at least as "lethal" as an AR-15 style rifle, provided they're chambered for the same cartridge. The type of weapon used is totally irrelevant, whether you can be made to understand it or not. And I didn't mess up any formatting, you screwed up the formating yourself, go to the page history and check what the article looked like after your edit, i.e. before I made my edit... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

it does not depend on weapon type since all of the different kinds of weapons I listed can have barrels that are... If you can't see the problem with that, I can't help you.Waleswatcher (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: You still don't get it. The severity of a wound resulting from being hit by for example a 5.56mm 62 grain bullet depends on where in the target the bullet hits, which angle the bullet enters from, which type of bullet that is being used (some types fragment, others don't) and the velocity of the bullet when hitting the target (which is where the length of the barrel matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity). But if all of those things, i.e. same caliber, same bullet type, same angle, same place being hit and same velocity when hittting the target, are equal the severity of the wound will be identical, regardless of which type of weapon the bullet was fired from. And as I have told you all types of rifles I listed can be had with barrels of the exact same length as an AR-15 style rifle, or longer. So it's totally irrelevant if the shot was fired from an AR-15 style rifle, a bolt-action rifle, a single-shot rifle or any other kind of weapon with the same barrel length and chambered for the same cartridge. Capisce? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not all weapons can have barrels of any given length, and, as you now admit, the barrel length affects the wound. Therefore, it's false to say what you said. That will be my last comment on this issue. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the silliest posts I've ever read here. You just can't admit that you don't know sh*t about these things, can you? Wise people don't get into discussions about things they know nothing about, I suggest you do the same. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll even be kind enough to provide you with a link showing what it looked like after your edit... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right - I messed it up with my initial edit, and you partially fixed it. I only saw the partial fix and incorrectly assumed you created the problem. See? I at least can admit when I'm wrong. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the barrel length and twist rate of a AR-15 style rifle? Since there is not hard and fast standard for either of those it make it hard for comparison. PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, all statements about "AR-15 style rifles" come with the caveat that it's a loosely defined term. That's an issue that affects the entire article. If there are reliable sources discussing this for some rifles that are "AR-15 style", that suffices. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am not an expert on this, and my oppose is based on light research that I have looked at in combination with the provided source and text. There are numerous problems with the proposed text that I can identify.

1) [W]ho described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants <- The AR-15 is not an assault rifle as it is not select fire capable. The term you're looking for is the DOJ's invention "assault weapon" (there's a reason that the NYT article uses "assault-style" throughout when referring to the AR-15, but not when referring to the M16 and other actual assault rifles).

2) What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast <- Cherrypicked, UNDUE, and incorrect.

a) The author of the NYT article also wrote that [m]any factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. It's poor source utilization to ignore this.

b) There are a number of factors that impact on the wound characteristics of a ballistic projectile, and even within the NYT article "velocity" is not the only one mentioned. Indeed, the proposed text treats yaw as an afterthought, when it and bullet fragmentation contribute more significantly to these characteristics then velocity alone does. Its effect on soft tissue and the human target is greatly dependent upon bullet fragmentation and/or yawing at striking velocities above 2,500 feet per second... from SADJ. Note that the emphasis is on fragmentation and projectile yaw, not velocity. According to Dr. Martin Fackler: If 5.56mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are relatively insignificant wounds, similar to those produced by .22 long rifle bullets .... Another source, written by doctors Dominick and Vincent Dimaio[2]: The wounds produced by this round (.223 / 5.56 NATO) are, in fact, less severe that those produced by lower-velocity hunting ammunition such as the .30-30, a nineteenth century cartridge (pg. 156). This is because the rounds have a tendency to rapidly destabilize ... lose considerable amounts of kinetic energy, thus producing relatively severe wounds for the amount of kinetic energy that it possesses. They do mention two "recently introduced" 62gr rounds, though they can't say much about them as they haven't had the opportunity to study radiologic pitcure[s] of individuals shot with these cartridges. The Dimaio's also make a comment about military bullets in general on pg 155: Military bullets, by virtue of their FMJs [full metal jacket], tend to pass through the body intact, thus producing less extensive injuries than hunting ammunition. Indeed, 5.56 x 45mm is an exception to this rule.

c) I'd also add another quote here from NYT: Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use. Which coincidentally brings me to d):

d) These rifles? one of the sources I've presented, and less actively the NYT source, make the point that hunting rounds cause more severe damage than the 5.56 round. So what the hell do you mean "these rifles".

e) Just for added kicks, here's a bunch more sources that would dispute the NYT article either in part or in full. Frank C. Barnes makes a comment on pg. 53 that the characteristic damage of the 5.56 NATO round is a result of yawing at high velocities causing energy transfer. He also makes the comment on pg. 52 that being hit by multiple rounds did not prevent enemy soldiers killing US soldiers. Beat P. Kneubehl comments on pg 339 that it is wrong to think that the 5.56 NATO rounds cause their characteristic damage due to velocity, rather it's a combination of energy transfer and fragmentation. This directly disputes the suggestion that high velocity is the cause. Larry Peterson only makes a short comment that wound characteristics cannot be accounted for by a single factor, or even the bullet itself. Here's a source that takes Hydrostatic shock seriously. It doesn't talk specifically about the 5.56 or AR-15's, but it does make a quick comment that a round from an M16 may leave similarly sized entry and exit wounds.

3) The treatment of a controversial theory, Hydrostatic shock as fact, is a problem: As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. Whether or not this is even a thing is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, still in dispute.

4) Comparing a rifle to a handgun. Well no duh that the wound characteristics are going to be different. If you're going to make the comparison it needs to be apples to apples, not apples to oranges. Refer above to see how you compare an apple to an apple: rifle to rifle.

5) The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” <- This entire sentence should be in quotes, currently it is misleading the reader into believing that a surgeon said this, when in fact, the author of the article said that the surgeons said this: Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields. The other half, is actually a quote from Dr. Martin Schreiber in a different part of the article. I'm also going to include another quote from the Dimaio's here: The 55 gr. bullet has been described as exploding the body. Such statements are, of course, nonsense. I kinda already knew that the NYT article was exaggerating on this point: The tissue destruction is almost unimaginable. Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed. The injuries to the chest or abdomen — it’s like a bomb went off. No, no it isn't like a bomb went off. You'd be scraping tissue matter off the sidewalk if a "bomb went off".

Overall, I don't see that the proposed text and source are a reasonable consensus of what doctors or subject specialists think on this subject. I could at best call it "controversial" and at worst "unresearched". If the multiple sources from doctors and subject experts that I found in a few hours of research tend to dispute the material from article, then that's a problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, as answered at RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my arguments on RSN, the source lacks the specificity to be included in this page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose, as answered at RSN. -72bikers (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. All firearms are deadly and cause carnage. The AR-15 is on the lower end of power and destructiveness. A traditional 12-gauge shotgun such as the one owned by Joe Biden will cause far more carnage. From this site: http://wredlich.com/ny/2013/01/projectiles-muzzle-energy-stopping-power , here's a chart with some common projectiles and bullets:

12-gauge shotgun: 4,453 joules

30-06 hunting rifle: 4,050 joules

.223 (AR-15) rifle: 1,854 joules - less than half of the energy of an average shotgun!

Anyone shot with a .223 from any barrel length of an AR-15 is more likely survive than than anyone shot with a 30-06 hunting rifle or 12-gauge shotgun. Most of the big media are fairly ignorant about guns, hence they peddle this misleading narrative. kevinp2 (talk)

kevinp2, I hear this all the time from gun nuts, that no one else understands anything about guns and thus they should shut up. I'd suggest that you are probably not a medical doctor, nor a professional journalist, so I have a feeling you're fairly ignorant about a. this business about wounds and b. the ins and outs of professional writing, and so maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Also, unlike wredlich.com, which is a WordPress blog whose very title is POV, NYT.com is a reliable source. That matters here. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Gun nuts", "fairly ignorant ... about professional writing", these insults certainly make you an expert, LOL. You would be surprised at how much "gun nuts" know about terminal ballistics. As just one example, all serious hunters know what will happen when their rifle bullets hit their target and they and their culture have invested time and energy into research and experiments. The entire staff of Mother Jones, Vox, Vice, Wonkblog, Raw Story, Rolling Stone, Slate and the NYT put together could not identify a firearm in real life if they tripped and fell over it. They are ignorant fools who don't understand guns, gun technology, the existing gun laws and the gun culture in their own country. And they don't care. They routinely make monkeys out of unwitting people like you who cite their hit pieces without verification. kevinp2 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the crux of the NYT article is that rifle wounds are more severe than those from handguns. That seems so obvious of observation that it barely warrants a sentence in rifle, let alone a much more extensive quote in a more detailed article about a particular style of rifle. VQuakr (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's written up in the NYT it must mean that it's not that obvious. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like an analogous line of reasoning to WP:WEIGHT for POV, but I don't think it holds for judging inclusion of true, obvious statements. Lots of obvious things are also sourceable, but that doesn't mean we need to state them everywhere. Like how we mention that a car is a wheeled vehicle, but don't bother repeating the fact at Ford Mustang. VQuakr (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We are running into a problem where people commonly suggesting edits to these articles know so little about the subject itself that they don't understand that their edits don't make sense. Their intentions are good, but their understanding is lacking. There is nothing special about the standard 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington caliber/s of the AR-15 rifle and, in fact, this cartridge is on the low end of the power scale for rifle cartridges. Further, there is nothing unique about the barrel lengths available on typical AR-15 pattern rifles and, in fact, they tend to gravitate toward the shorter end of the rifle spectrum for easy handling which means that performance is actually diminished when compared to typical alternatives like a bolt-action rifle, which will generally possess a longer barrel than a typical AR-15 pattern rifle will. Given all of this, inclusion makes no sense whatsoever and only serves to needlessly lengthen and complicate the article. Syr74 (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Syr74, you can pretend to know all you want, but this kind of technical elitism isn't going to go anywhere. So we have an article in which a doctor is cited who says these wounds are horrible, and you come in here saying they don't know what they're talking about? Sorry, are you a doctor now?

Drmies if you had looked at the sources I linked and used, you wouldn't need to make this comment (or your others either). You don't need to be a doctor to rebut these claims, plenty of doctors have already done so. Moreover, you can use your own head even if you are entirely illiterate on this subject. The claim that the rifle causes injuries akin to a bomb going off should be absurd even to the most dogmatically anti-gun reader. Take your POV lens off for a moment and read the article closely. It's weak, particularly for a reputable news source. The actual proposed text is a hack job of the source, for that matter, as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We're all looking forward to your citing those doctors. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I already have Drmies, in my oppose !vote I cited Dr Martin Fackler, Dr Dominick and Vincent Dimaio, and the Oxford Textbook of Critical Care (for a minor point). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To date, 9 oppose and 3 support. -72bikers (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the amusing features of this "debate" is the level of irrelevance of the "exclude" argumentation. Is the NYT a credible source? Of course it is. Is the article talking about the AR-15 style rifle? Yes. That's the threshold for inclusion. Now if you want to edit the proposed text, add counterbalancing arguments from other sources, augment it with additional research, etc. that's all good. The amount of irrelevant "gunsplaining" is something to behold. Despite all this ink spilled, nobody on the "exclude" side has bothered to include even a section on wound characteristics, even with a brief summary and link to the article on the round. It tells us all we need to know about why this content is excluded.Farcaster (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: One of the many problems with the "exclude" argumentation is people trying to explain the "truth" as they see it. Wikipedia is about facts, meaning something anyone can look up. Facts come from sources of varying credibility, the NYT being a very high credibility source. Whether a fact is "true" or not is not our call or concern. On-topic facts from credible sources should be included, and disputed with other facts.Farcaster (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The 5.56x45 NATO is one of the weaker rifle rounds out there. One of the main criticisms of the round is it is too weak. Afootpluto (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotes

If we are going to reject quotes in one place, why should we allow extended ones in another? This double standard would appear to cherry-pick one view and obscure another. -72bikers (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite possibly, I have made my views on the extended quotes known.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The challenged "Brady campaign source" the controversial advocacy organization that is self published and openly bias (i.e. not reliable) very long quote remains, support a double standard. Its objection for removal could be seen as just a attempt to keep this very long and potential POV pushed quote in the the article. There are many other sources supporting the content, thereby making this challenged self published content superfluous. This runs contrary to removing recognized expert summarizations and statements in a reliable source. So how does this challenged content remain and reliable sourced expert content removed not seen as a double standard? -72bikers (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There are 16 citations with quotes in the article, 4 outside the crime section and 12 within. 9 of those within support just one statement. Those extended quotes are either redundant restating content in the section, or repetitive restating other quoted content, or making highly demeaning statements of the weapon that could be construed as a POV push.

Those 9 also outweigh the section content by about 3 to 1 in length. How is this not seen as a way to circumvent and a violation of WP:UNDUE with a POV push that would violate WP:PROPORTION as well as WP:VALID, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL.

"The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers. America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers. The AR-15 is America’s most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino. They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly. AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers.AR-15-style rifles have become something of a weapon of choice for mass shooters. While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America’s most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence. Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, 'It adds insult to the literal injuries and loss of life suffered by today's victims that even though the killer was known to be too dangerous to have guns, his father chose to rearm him including, reportedly, with the AR-15 used this morning, a weapon of war that now happens to be the weapon of choice in far too many mass killings in America."

Clearly a case of double standards when judged against the removal of quotes from a reliable source from reconized experts. -72bikers (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Lay of the accusations of double standards, Above I said what I thought of all the quotes. Attacking users (rather then content) in this way does not aid your cause. Specific objections were raised to the quotes you added, you have not raised the same objections to these quotes and so it is not a double standard. If you want to add your quotes (without the contested material) go ahead, I have said what I think of these lengthy quotes, but will not oppose if it matter that much to you (I will also not oppose you removing the others). But this is not the same as the materiel you added, so stop trying to make a reciprocal case.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I made no accusation of any specific editor, there is not even one name listed in my post, perhaps you misunderstood what I said.

I have precisely stated my objections based on policies listed. I will now elaborate again, extremely lethal POV push, off topic POV push, along with redundant and repetitive content.

I further see no distinction for any legitimate reasons why my quote contributions were removed and the others allowed to remain. The reason that was presented was based on a miunderstaning of the content. The word lethality use was neither stating the weapon was overly lethal nor lacked lethality. The objections were based on the misunderstanding that the word use stated the wepapon lacked lethality. The word use was simply used by the experts to explain the selection of the weapon was not based on how lethal the weapon is or is not, but simply based on what other shooters have used "copycat" that's it.

I will for now do as you have suggested and restore the quotes minsus the word lethal for now and trim the extended quotes for reasons listed. We can then further dicuss the word lethal. -72bikers (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your material was removed because it added material via cite quote that had already been rejected for the body. No one has suggested that the quoted we already have added rejected material by a back door. Thus there is no double standard as the reasons your edit was rejected is unrelated to the reasons you are now rejecting the existing material. And what on earth is a lethal POV push, what is lethal about it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation is yours to have. I have challenged the current quotes so this does show a double standard if they are left untouched and mine denied. You have stated support to include mine and trim the others, this would cancel any double standard. The word I shall treat as a separate matter. You choose to exclude the word based on your misunderstand that it stated the weapon was not lethal. Do you dispute this? You also said it could be included only if more content on the weapons superior lethality could be included. Do you dispute this? Later I will provide all the diffs here. I assume once shown this you might change your stance on this matter. -72bikers (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok you just reverted my edit stating its not just the single word, now stating subject matter, this is clear proof of setting a double standard. For what reason and on what grounds do you feel supports your action to deny reliable sourced expert content in a quote.-72bikers (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No I excluded it based upon the fact we do not discus the other side of that debate. And no it does not show a double standard as top be a double standard your reason for exclusion has to be the same as the reasons for the other exclusion, it is not. I am objecting to using citation quotes to include material that has been rejected ion the body, so unless someone tries to add this material to the body and then try to use citation quotes as a way around an objection to that the situation is not analogous.

Now we have had multiple threads about including mention of the fact that some "experts" have said these guns are not that dangerous and that they are not being chosen for their effectiveness at killing. This is (yet again) another thread on this subject. This is entering the realm of tendentious editing. Again it is not about one word, it is about the subject. We either have material about the debate about the guns effectiveness (or lack of it) or we do not. What we do not do is put one side of an argument. I fail to see how you get the impression that by changing one word you answer the point. Hell it even says the very thing you claim you were not trying to say, that the gun is not as dangerous as others.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

First lets start at the top of your reply and go step by step. "No I excluded it based upon the fact we do not discus the other side of that debate" The other side of what debate? Can you please be very specific and explain exactly what you are referring to. Also it would be helpful if you could provide exactly what policy or guideline you are following. Please be very thorough as to not have any misunderstandings. -72bikers (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Not again? how many times. Some claim the gun is not very lethal, others claim (or maybe they are the same) that the gun is not the most deadly. Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding. Thus it is not simply as black and white as you present it. If we list why it is chosen we have the list all the supposed reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

So to be clear on your statement "Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding." You are stating you will stonewall the content based on the fact the wound content was denied and only agree with inclusion with the wound content inclusion correct? Your statement "It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not, what matters is coverage" this is what you are basing your argument on correct? -72bikers (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Fully agreed. I've removed the quotes 72bikers added. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No expert that I am aware of have said that the AR-15 is chosen because of how lethal it is. If you can find me one or two I will reconsider my opinion, but only ones I have found are from people who aren't experts in firearms.Afootpluto (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

WW please restore the quote, on what grounds do you feel supports this action. SS was in agreement with that inclusion. Do you feel your sole opinion is enough for quote content removal from a citation already in the article?

Also SS and I were on agreement on trimming or removing some of the other extended quotes as well. Are you in full agreement with this? -72bikers (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue with the quotes. I don't think they add much but, while such quotes can be POV push, I don't see these as POV push. Slatersteven, I don't think your "other side" argument is valid here. I've previously stated that I suspect there are more articles/experts who have discussed this topic and it would be good to get more opinions on the subject. That said, we don't need to create a false debate. If the experts all seem to agree then we say what they feel. We don't include opinions of non-experts just to create a sense of 'argument among experts' in the discussion. This is similar to the previous situation with the mention of lethality. If we agree that the opinion of an expert should be included then we should include both things the expert said were not factors as well as those that were based on the fact that the expert felt it should be pointed out. We don't need to create a yin and yang if reliable expert sources don't say it exists. Separately, I agree with 72bikers that we should be more consistent in how we handle these quotes. Why include the Brady Campaign quote but not ones from an expert source? I wouldn't fight to retain the recently disputed quotes but I think we should be consistent and remove the Brady quotes as they were controversial as well. Springee (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And who are these "experts" as I have said before this is not like climate change or evolution where you have one group that has recognized (and recognizable qualifications (for example why is a criminologist an expert but not a medical professional?)). Moreover (as I also said in the lethality debate) those "experts" were responding to claims made about the gun, thus it seems odd that if to not include what they choose to respond to.Slatersteven (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And what makes the Brady Campaign not expert?, but I agree that some of this needs trimming, some of those quotes are as long as the damn section.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes the Brady campaign an expert? That is the question that should be asked. Afootpluto (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly shown the recognized expert credentials. The author from the reliable source stated these men are experts on this topic. This is what experts look like on this subject. The gun expert credentials of Hazon could not look any more qualified unless his name was John Browning. Professor Dr. Pete Blair skill set is also on firearms, but what really stands out is his credentials on mass murder. The program he heads up has trained something like 100,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S..

• Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally.
• Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert.

What proof do you have that supports this "those "experts" were responding to claims made about the gun"? The author would have present this if this was true. They clearly were just stating in there judgement this is what they were seeing happen. That's it! You still seem to be hung up on the wound content and stonewalling because of it, as you have stated priorly.

As to the Brady content, no reliable source has presented them as experts on firearms nor mass murder. Its really is that simple. It is common knowledge that a advocacy group is bias. I can also present proof in one of my sources they were present along with the NRA for contrast, speaking on the weapons popularity based on observation. They were not recognized as experts on firearms nor mass murder. There comments stating this “Along those lines, they’re very customizable — most average people can figure out how to install accessories like forward trigger grips that let you hold the gun at waist height and spray bullets while stabilizing the gun shows the lack of knowledge on firearms. There are no "forward trigger grips." The implication that "let you hold the gun at waist height and spray bullets." Spraying bullets implies fully automatic weapon which these guns are not. Even when just speaking of the weapons popularity they can not hide there bias, as to trying to lump this weapon in with military assault rifles.

SS if you truly believe there is not a double standard being applied, you would remove the Brady content and restore the quote you found no problem with. -72bikers (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have already said why I objected to your quotes, and it has nothing to do with length. And RS saying they are experts does not make them so, being recognized as such by some form of formal recognition does. So are you saying that a newspaper would ask for a quote about guns from people they do not think are authoritative (yes that includes the Brady Campaign). Are you really saying that as long as an RS call them an expert then we can quote them as one? What about its members if they are experts then surely it must have expertise [3], or is it only the press that get to assign expertise?Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In a effort to induce reason, @Waleswatcher: on what grounds do you remove the quotes providing the reader with just statements of who the recognized experts are and briefly elaborate on there views of copycatting solely.

• ...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder... The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”

• Hazen said the AR-15 has "gotten a bad rap." He believes mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation it has gotten from being used in other mass shootings.

In a effort to induce reason, @Slatersteven: on what grounds do you remove the quote simply elaborating on views of copycatting and briefly explaining the fact and common knowledge there are more powerful rifles but in not using them and simply using what others have used reinforce there copycat views.

• Dean Hazen, ...said the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle. "It’s really just a perception thing," Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used." For example, Hazen says the AK-47.

I invite you both to have a discussion on these matters in the interest of improving the article for readers. -72bikers (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have told you why I removed certain quotes. I have told you what (and why) I rejected it. I am not going to repeat myself.

I will repeat myself here, lets have both sides of why these guns are being used. Lets have reference to their accuracy, their efficacy at killing moving targets. Lets have reference to their modability, lets use more then just two peoples views. And lets not have this attitude that says who are and are not experts based upon what an interviewing sources calls them (they are hardly going to say "some bloke we got to talk to us"), Newspapers do not (in matters of this nature) randomly interview people off the street. If someones views are given as authoritative then there is no reason to reject them just because you do not think they are an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

To have "both sides" you need to find experts on the other side. I haven't seen any experts presented that contradict what we have thus far. We don't have other sources that could reasonably say why these guns are selected. If you feel we have other sources that are experts which ones? Brady wouldn't be. Springee (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We have "experts" (such as medical professionals) saying these weapons are unusually dangerous, thus if we include the claim they are not we must include the claim they are. And again, why ids the Brady campaign not an expert? As to what the experts say [[4]] "“It’s a perfect killing machine,” says Dr. Peter Rhee, a leading trauma surgeon and retired captain with 24 years of active-duty service in the Navy." (and what one of the designers said "The AR-15 assault rifle was engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect.”"). So what makes him not an expert?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Any expert that tries to compare a handgun wound to a wound caused by a 5.56x45mm NATO, is either not an expert or they are trying to mislead you. Afootpluto (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We do not judge, we report. Now either we have some criteria we can use for what makes someone an expert (in which case it applies to all) or we accept there is no clear cut definition.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, remember, the topic was why the weapons are picked. If the topic were what kind of wounds are typical of a typical AR-15 then medical personel would be reasonable subject matter experts (SMEs). In this case the question is why are mass shooters selecting the weapons. In that case a trauma surgeon wouldn't typically be the expert. Instead people like criminologists would be the SMEs. The Brady Campaign is an advocacy group. Such groups, unless they have individual members who are SMEs aren't typically considered SMEs. If we included the Brady Campaign, why not the NRA? I would also object to using the NRA as an expert opinion on why mass shooters select various firearms. Springee (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have said before there is no reason to exclude the NRA. So if a trauma surgeon is not an expert on why people select a gun, why would a "gun expert", if the question is one of criminology or psychology? Again what criteria are we using for supposed expertise, lets lay out some ground rules before (and not after) we decide to add material form experts.

We have several external news sources that are generally considered reliable telling us that the people in question are experts in relevant areas. That is how we have established them as experts. None of the news sources are saying Brady or the surgeons are experts in why particular weapons are picked. Springee (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The most common criticism of the 5.56 from military experts is that it doesn't have much stopping power. Experts have been saying this same thing way before I was born. Afootpluto (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok if I am understanding you, unlike your previous statements that you accepted that these two men are experts on weapons choice of copycatting, you are now saying they are not experts. You are also stating the wound content that has nothing to do with weapon choice has to be in the article or you will not stop your reverts to quotes to citations already in the article. That are not unlike the 9 WP:OVERKILL citations with extended quotes that support the statement that brings up the subject of weapon choice, that my 3 citations with recognized experts on weapon choice answers. If this is all correct please state yes. If not please be as specific as you can on the just the points I have raised. -72bikers (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

When did I accept they are experts, I think (throughout) I have asked "what makes them experts". I will not rake over old debates again, you know what I have said.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC).

SS shall I remind you of you statements "that violates NPOV. It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not" "Produce as many sources as you like supporting the text no one is challenging. The only possible compromise would be to also include those who say it is being chosen because of its perceived lethality, and then rebut it." "There is, leave out one word (in effect), then we can have the rest of it" " W Hat we have is a couple of experts who are responding to claims, if we have the response balance requires us to have what they were responding to, if we do not we violate NPOV (as we are only putting one side of a debate).Slatersteven". There is more but I believe this is enough to make the point. Your previous objection have all seem to be based on "AS we do not discus it's lethality why are we still mentioning it here?" So I want to be quite clear on what you are actually objecting to. -72bikers (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Errr, You have just said what I am objecting to. There is no confusion in anything you have quoted from me, it is saying (more or less) the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your stance before on the content such as "Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." leave out the word as you thought it stated the weapon was not lethal. And you were fine with the inclusion. So it would be helpful that you stated your objection clearly so that might be addressed other. So please stated exactly what fully and completely what your objection are. -72bikers (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious now. I am saying (Christ how many times) that it does not matter where we discus it if we put one sides view that these guns ate not significantly more dangerous then others we must also put the other side of the debate (even if they are "only" medical experts. What about this confuses you?Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I Just wanted you to clearly state any an all objections. So as you stated reliable sourced content from stated expert on this content that is already in the article can not be expanded. Unless the wound content that was found not reliable or appropriate to this content be include in exchange. Please if this is not correct or you have more issues please state. -72bikers (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts". "alleged "experts" do not get special notice here on Wikipedia, no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert. AS I have said before this is not like global warming where you have a clearly (and recognized) definition of expert (and thus fringe). Moreover (as far as I can tell) only one of your sources seems to support much of your added material.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: on what grounds do you remove the quotes providing the reader with just contex of who the recognized experts are and briefly elaborate on there views of copycatting solely. With your non reply I am to assume you have no reason, and would appear as just disruptive as you are the only editor to object to the quotes you removed. -72bikers (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've already explained. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No you haven't nor have you explained why you restored the quotes that 72biker removed. This is not clear why you are for in some cases and against in others. Please explain your thinking on the matter. Springee (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This most recent edit is blatant gaming of the system. I do not think that anybody is going to look kindly at edit summaries such as "I do not agree". Your approval is not required, a consensus is. I'm noticing a recent a pattern of reverting and then refusing to engage on the talk (twice in this section alone). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What "refusing"? You're simply making things up. Regarding the quotes 72bikers wants to add, I've engaged in endless debate on that topic over the last several weeks at least, and they simply keep beating the dead horse. I have no obligation to meet their demands to explain yet again whenever they decide to ask, again. As for the edit I reverted a few hours ago, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it. I think those quotes are valuable, clear, and improve the article. I don't agree they could lead to confusion, and even if they did, removing them is not the right way to fix that. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about your refusal to engage, for some reason I need to repeat myself. In this section, and on this topic, you have made two prior comments, those are a vague declaration of Fully agreed coupled with a revert and I've already explained. Two words are not an explanation. You'd be amazed at how quickly the ctrl+f function can put all of your edits into my hands. Here's your last month of contributions, skipping the comment I am responding to and the two I've already linked: a declaration that you are entitled to leave "legitimate warnings" on another user's talk page irrespective of any prior "stay off" notices you've received, which is not exactly true, you can leave "required notifications" of which only 1 warning constitutes "required", a DS reminder, and an incorrect one at that: "Content cannot be added to the article without consensus" that is not correct, content cannot be re-instated without prior consensus. This is not the same thing as adding new content, a content-ful comment concerning the popularity of AR-15s and their lethality, more on lethality and finally a comment on grammar and lethality. So where exactly have you discussed the quotes? (and no, your two edit summaries demanding prior consensus do not constitute "an explanation", they are WP:GAME tactics). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In the three comments on "lethality" (not to mention the other one agreeing with Slatersteven). Did you bother to read them? They are about very similar material from the same source and with quotes from the same experts. And that's not even the beginning, this has been going on for ages. For instance here, and probably before. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Let start with this first. On what grounds do you remove the quotes of content already in the article providing the reader with just context of who the recognized experts are and briefly elaborate on there views of copycatting solely.

You said "I've already explained." There is no specific reasoning given for it on this talk page. Nor does it appear that any other editor has shown specific support of your removal. The content was not even controversial. -72bikers (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to previous content you and SS have stated numerous times could be included if the rejected wound content is included, or misunderstanding content, then yes [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11],, [12], [13]. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. [22], [23] [24]. But both editors WW and SS were both seemingly misunderstanding most of the content stating implications of lack of lethality. When all that was stated was perceived lethality was not a factor of its selection, and both elaborated as to why. The comment supporting there views of copycat here does not infer a lack of lethality.

Your stating that the content would not be allowed because the content stated the rifle was not being chosen on any perceived lethality and took that to mean incorrectly the rifle had no lethality.

• Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. This comment just using the word does not imply the AR lacks lethality. Jus support of there copycat view. Just more support of the selection being copycat.

• "Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used." This also does not state the AR in the used caliber of .223 lacks lethality. But simply states the obvious and common knowledge there are more powerful calibers than the .223 that the AR could be purchased in or even converted to after purchase. Just more support of the selection being copycat.

• "Hazen says the AK-47 — and its semiautomatic variants — is a "far more wicked gun than an AR-15." "and use larger 7.62 mm rounds as opposed to the standard AR-15's .223 rounds." Again stating there are larger calibers than the .223 does not state the lacks lethality but clearly state the obvious and common knowledge there are more powerful calibers than the .223 and gives a example. Just more support of the selection being copycat.

• Some killers might be drawn to the AR-15 because they are the "weapon of choice" for the military and police. But ironically, the police "choose it because it is under-powered, Hazen said, "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." The Army is considering moving to a higher-caliber rifle partly because that would make the weapon more deadly." I assume this is the content that does peaks to the .233/55.6 lacking of power. It does not directly state a lack of lethality but I guess you could make a argument for lack of lethality from this. But this is the only statement you could argue for a lack of lethality. But also is Just more support of the selection being copycat.

But the quotes you removed @Waleswatcher: did not state nor infer any lethality [25]. And you have still not provide answers to those two specific quotes you removed.

• "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder... The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”

• "Hazen said the AR-15 has "gotten a bad rap." He believes mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation it has gotten from being used in other mass shootings."

Nothing in these two quotes states or infers any lethality. -72bikers (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Er no I took it to mean that the gun is not as lethal as some others, but I see nothing in your quotes that says the shooters do not know the guns are not in fact the most lethal available. In fact there is an explicit statement they know nothing about guns, and I seem to recall A clear implication that it was partly the fact they were not picking the best tool for the job that was an indication they did not know anything about the gun. So No your sources do not say "perceived lethality was not a factor" and in fact strongly imply the opposite. That whilst the guns are not that lethal the shooters are not aware of that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? -72bikers (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you please state what comments in the references you are basing your views on. I believe I have provided all the pertinent comments above. If something was left out please state this. -72bikers (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven are you implying that because shooters showed a lack of firearm knowledge, there choice was based on what others used and perceived in their mind that this is the evil tool to use? -72bikers (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying the sources are making a technical judgement about the guns lethality, not that the shooters are aware of that "fact". Indeed none of the sources say that the shooters do not think the guns are unusually effective for this kind of attack, just that in (the view of the "experts") they are not unusually effective.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Please be specific with your statements.

I have provided all the content from the sources I think is relevant to this discussion. If I missed something please address this. Please show any specific issues with them, and please include in your statements. Your interpretation or theory "the sources are making a technical judgement about the guns lethality". Can you provide exactly what statements are supporting your interpretation or theory or you find issue with from the lists above?

Also could you weigh in on the content that WW removed, do you support him? -72bikers (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is they do not say the gunmen do not view these an exceptionally lethal, all they say is that the gunmen do not know enough to know anything about them. What they do say is that they (that is to say the people being quoted) do not think these gun sare unusually or exceptional lethal. As to the rest, I am not going to create a confusing spaghetti debate where we discus different issues in one reply, ask it again. Its getting hard enough to tell who is being replied to as it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Say what? Hey don't take this the wrong way. I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you not realizing that all sounds like double talk?

"they do not say the gunmen do not view these an exceptionally lethal","do not think these gun sare unusually or exceptional lethal" (were show this), and explain how does this relate to you refusing to allow RS content that is already accepted in the article.

I specifically ask you to address the specific content presented. What you appear to be trying to say are just your own opinions or some theory based on just your own thinkings.

I would like to point out your own statement If it is an RS is saying it we cannot reject it on the grounds it is false. We do not get to say RS are wrong. Is Christopher R. Bartocci an expert? What about Sam Bocetta? If either or both are experts then we cannot reject what they say as "wrong". There may bed reasons to reject these quotes, incorrectness is not a valid one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58 am, 21 July 2018, last Saturday (4 days ago) (UTC−4) -72bikers (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Also your statement We do not analyise sources.Slatersteven (talk) 7:20 am, 18 July 2018, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−4) These appear to imply a double standard and a contradiction. -72bikers (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

How simple do you want it, you said they say X they do not say X. If they say X (X not Y) quote then saying X (not Y X). They do not say anything about the gunmens perceptions other then not knowing a lot about firearms, think about it, think about. They make no statement about what the gunmen think about the guns effectiveness (think about it).Slatersteven (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Again you do not use any specific content that I provide above. It would appear you have no legitimate view so you try and make some obscure view that only you see. SS why do you keep using this double talk, and double standards? You say "We do not analyise sources" yet here you are trying to do just that. You say "If it is an RS is saying it we cannot reject it on the grounds it is false" yet here you are trying to do just that. You say " We do not get to say RS are wrong" yet here you are trying to do just that. You say ". Is Christopher R. Bartocci an expert? What about Sam Bocetta? If either or both are experts then we cannot reject what they say as "wrong" yet here you are trying to do just that. You say "There may bed reasons to reject these quotes, incorrectness is not a valid one" yet here you are trying to do just that. It would appear you are contradicting yourself, even if the content was false or wrong or incorrect (though it is not). Do you still state there is no double standard. I make no claims or interpretations of the content, the content is the content.

• Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. This comment just using the word does not imply the AR lacks lethality. Just more support of the selection being based on copycat.

• "Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used." This also does not state the AR in the used caliber of .223 lacks lethality. But simply states the obvious and common knowledge there are more powerful calibers than the .223 that the AR could be purchased in or even converted to after purchase. Just more support of the selection being copycat.

• "Hazen says the AK-47 — and its semiautomatic variants — is a "far more wicked gun than an AR-15." "and use larger 7.62 mm rounds as opposed to the standard AR-15's .223 rounds." I assume this is the content that your argument is based on. Again stating there are larger calibers than the .223 and states the obvious and common knowledge there are more powerful calibers than the .223 and gives a example. Just more support of the selection just being based on copycat.

• Some killers might be drawn to the AR-15 because they are the "weapon of choice" for the military and police. But ironically, the police "choose it because it is under-powered, Hazen said, "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." The Army is considering moving to a higher-caliber rifle partly because that would make the weapon more deadly." I assume this is content that does speaks to the .233/55.6 lacking of power your argument is based on. But it is also Just more support of the selection being copycat.

Again here is the content that I believe you are in denial of, if something was left out please state. Will you please stay on topic and address specific content. You have said before you will not let this content to be included unless opposing content (the wound content) be included. You have said before this content states (incorrectly) that it says the weapon is not lethal. Are these you views and if so will you clearly and precisely show exactly what specific statement or words you are referring to. Will you then provide what policy or RS that would support your claims of denial. -72bikers (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As this is now being discussed in another thread I will not rake over old coals again here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this section is about you, the section below with WW name is about him. Please address you actions here. -72bikers (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

We talk about edits, not editors. So if we are talking about removal of material we do it in one thread, not 2 or 3 or 4 based upon the number of participants. I am not going to try and follow half a dozen threads on the same edits. This is my last reply to this thread. Ohh and WW is mentioned here to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

definition of expert

OK how do we define if someone is an expert on the use of these guns?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If we can find a background that says they are experts in the field (say academic publications on the subject) or if we have external, reliable sources, that say they are experts and we don't have reason to assume they aren't. Springee (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, and what about if they are quotes in a way that implies they are experts, but they are not explicitly called experts?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an example? I think that would be case by case but in general I would say no but I don't want to make that an absolute. As it applies to this discussion we currently have only two expert opinions based on the articles 72bikers has been citing. I'm sure those aren't the only two experts on the subject but until we have more they are the only ones we have for both reasons why and reasons why not. Springee (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes an AR-5 designer (unnamed) who said it was "engineered to create what one of its designers called “maximum wound effect.”". As to only two experts, well as I have already said surely a doctor is an expert on wounds. Thus there is a debate about how dangerous these guns are. So lets have another expert [[26]] David Chipman, a senior policy analyst at Giffords and former special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. said that he believes AR-15s have been so frequently used in mass shootings for two reasons: popularity and lethality.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean AR-15. OK, so you have an AR-15 designer making the claim. Let's assume the person is competent. That comment wouldn't explain why mass shooters picked the AR-15 vs an AK pattern rifle, a 9mm Luger or a rim fire 22 bolt gun. To answer the question why do mass shooters pick a particular gun we do need some knowledge of guns but we also need knowledge of what motivated the shooter, what options they had etc. It's not a question about the device so much as about the user. Think about this, why do SUV's outsell minivans for family hauling duties when minivans are objectively superior? Well to answer that question we need to enter into the heads of the buyers vs asking the engineers which has better ground clearance. As for Chipman, has he been acknowledged as an expert by an independent RS? I'm not sure I would say yes but I will admit I'm not sold on the quality of the current sources and if Chipman can be established as reliable I don't see why we wouldn't include his opinion. Anyway, please propose it as a separate section. I've been asking for more sources so I'm not going to close the door the moment you suggest one. Incidentally, the AR-15 designer was Stoner, and he picked an already available bullet type at least in part because it wasn't significantly disadvantaged as compared to other rifle rounds. Other designers would be simply modifying the existing design and their opinions as to why the ammo was selected would be second hand. Springee (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just reviewed the BI article that interviewed Chipman. I think you will have to work hard to make a good claim that Chipman has the credentials to be an expert in why the AR-15 was selected. I think his arguments intuitively make sense and personally think he is right to some extent. The gun is common (I agree with him) and it is powerful as compared to many pistols (I think I agree with him) but compared to a number of other reasonably available ammo types the 5.56 based AR-15 isn't as powerful as a number of other options. My personal opinion, ie OR, is that the gun is probably selected because it's commonly available and the perception is it's reasonably powerful as compared to common pistols even if it's low power as compared to say a 308 based rifle. I don't see Chipman's comments as totally contradictory to those of the previously quoted experts. Both agree on the commonality part. The question is lethality and my opinion is Chipman sees it as "lethal compared to other common options" while the other guys see it as "not as powerful as other available options". That of course is my opinion. Springee (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Odd how they did not say ammo, they said the gun. And it may well be it was one of the team that worked on it development after Stone designed it. As to Chipmam [[27]]. As I said, we put all views or none.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Your The Nation article starts off on deceptive footing by recreating a very discredited claim. It starts by comparing (as a ratio) the number of "lethal shootings in defense of life or property" to gun murders and suicides. That general stat was published a while ago in relation to home defensive gun uses and was widely discredited by many sources that noted that a defense use of a gun doesn't have to result in a death or even a shooting. Even worse is the quote "A firearm makes a person almost twice as likely to become the victim of a homicide and three times more likely to commit suicide." The author clearly confuses correlation with causation. The number of firetrucks that show up to fight a fire is positively correlated with the damage done by the fire. So the secret to reducing property damage is don't have the firetrucks show up. I mention all this because it call's the author's credibility into question. Beyond the author's use of rhetoric rather than reason I don't see anything that says Chipman is an expert in why mass shooters selected their weapons. Rather I see a person who works with an advocacy group being quoted in a way that supports the advocate's message. Do we have anything that says Chipman would be an expert in why mass shooters picked weapons. BTW, to be fair, I'm not sure the other experts have been well established other than we have more than one generally reliable media source saying as much. This is why I'm not in love with those experts either. Springee (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sprinee to be fair Hazon is listed in two reliable sources as a gun expert and three if you count the other article in the same publication. Blair has ben in numerous and i mean numerous reliable sources. Such as in a video interview on CNN. He has been used in court cases as a expert. He has written numerous books. The FBI recognize him all as a expert on mass shootings. The program he heads up ALERRT has trained something 100,000 law enforcement on mass shootings. His views carries a lot of weight in this area. This is really not that hard to distinguish who is and who is not a expert on certain subject matters. On the issue of guns here I have reapeatedly shown SS and you had accepted earlier.

No question that Hazon is a gun expert, only that he may not have the expertise to say why shooters picked the guns they did. However, if multiple RS say he is qualified to offer that opinion then it's OR on my part to say otherwise. I do accept that Blair should be seen as an expert as to why shooters might pick various guns. If Hazen were our only source I would have objected. Since Hazen supported Blair I don't see an issue including Hazen. If Hazen contradicted Blair I would have said Hazen has to go. This so-so feeling towards Hazen as an expert for how he is being used in the article is why I would like to see more sources. Springee (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

My mistake let me apologize. I had not cleaned the wall of text there before my statements. You were actually saying everything I brought up and better at it. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert.

This mans career for 25 years was in law enforcement specifically SWAT they uses specialized or military equipment and tactics with military hand-me-down M-16s.

Munitions Specialist- Ammunition specialists are specialized officer with responsible for the management of ordnance (That's bullets).

Armorer and SWAT Team Operator-In a perfect world every tactical operator should be skilled enough to armor their own weapons, but this is not practical. The Armorer can inspect, maintain, and, when necessary, repair all weapons on the team.(he is in charge of there firearms as he is the firearm expert)

Field Training Officer-( FTO) is an specially trained officers who train new officers and evaluation.

So as you can see his specialized skill set is why the author recognizes him as expert on the rifle and munitions as it relates here. If you would like to challenge his qualifications you would need a stated expert in this area published in a reliable source.

• Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally.

As to Professor Dr. Pete Blair he is widely accepted as a mass shooting expert in numerous news outlets. The FBI recognize him as a expert, he has even been on CNN on the matter. He has even been in court cases as a expert in this area. He has a PHD in criminology (the scientific study of crime and criminals) his skill set is listed as mass shootings as well as fire arms.

But to simplify he is stated in the reliable source as a expert as it relates hear in the crime section on the AR-15 weapon choice in mass shootings. They are accepted as experts here as they are already used in the article as experts so to refute them is futile. I can proved the diffs that you have accepted this early and your disagreement has been only to exclude any content that spoke to the rifle lethality. So it is a bit odd that you would now refute they are recognized expert in this area.-72bikers (talk)

I'm going to disagree with 72bikers here. Based on the above description I would say Chipman and Hazen have basically equal credentials and while both are related, neither are on target. Blair on the other hand, seems more likely as an academic in a relevant subject. I would also say someone in the psychology fields would be a likely fit since we would be trying to ascertain why a choice was made by a person. Ideally would be a few peer reviewed studies on the subject. When I said I wasn't thrilled with the experts on either side I meant it. I think Blair is the only one that I would really be comfortable with thus far. Springee (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is I am not sure Blair supports the whole edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

All the people who you call "experts" just because they are a doctor only claim that the AR-15 is more lethal than handguns. This is commonsense because it is a rifle. I have yet see one of these so called experts compare a wound from deer hunting rounds like the 308, 30-06, or any other deer hunting rounds. So to imply AR-15s are extremely lethal compared other common guns, especially rifles, is very misleading. Also just FYI in some states you can't hunt deer with a standard AR-15 because it doesn't have enough stopping power. Afootpluto (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We do not analyise sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If they contradict the expert consensus, that has been around way before I was born, without a lot of proof, they aren't a reliable source. Because only recently has the claim that the 5.56x45 NATO is extremely deadly has been made. Afootpluto (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Elephants!Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how elephants has anything to do with this topic. Afootpluto (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I beleive at one time they made much of the fact the SAS killed one, with a 5.56 round, in marketing the gun as a hunting weapon.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You can technically kill an elephant with a .22 LR, but it would take a lot of them and placed exactly in the correct position. So I highly doubt you could kill an elephant with one 5.56 round unless it hits a extremely vital spot. But if we are talking about elephant hunting, lets look at an actual elephant hunting round, the 45-70 government and the 50 BMG. Now tell me how the 5.56x45 NATO compares to those. Afootpluto (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well lets see what Eugene Stoner had to say about the 5.56mm "There is the advantage that a small or light bullet has over a heavy one when it comes to wound ballistics. … What it amounts to is the fact that bullets are stabilized to fly through the air, and not through water, or a body, which is approximately the same density as the water. And they are stable as long as they are in the air. When they hit something, they immediately go unstable. … If you are talking about .30-caliber [like a bullet used in the Army’s previous M-14], this might remain stable through a human body. … While a little bullet, being it has a low mass, it senses an instability situation faster and reacts much faster. … this is what makes a little bullet pay off so much in wound ballistics.”. It was very much marketed as a killing round, on e more dangerous then bigger rounds. Now maybe that was just marketing and it is "technically" wrong. But it is certainly a perception fostered by the guns designer, and the industry. But we are also getting into soapbox territory, we say what RS say. So if RS say "Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal" we have to give their answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Most bullets become unstable when it hits the human body, unless they are going extremely fast or has a lot of energy. Also, 308 soft noses tumble just like 5.56x45 bullets and maybe even more so if the 5.56 bullet is a FMJ. Afootpluto (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Take it up with Stoner I am just repeating his (I assume he is an expert) claim.Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think we have two discussions here but both about experts. One discussion was "why do mass shooters pick AR-15s". The other is "is an AR-15 more lethal". My comments about experts have related to the former question. I agree with Slatersteven that if we talk about the lethality of an AR-15 (presumably firing a 'typical' 5.56 or .223 round from a 'typical' barrel) then I agree that we have reliable sources that discuss lethality as high (compared to 'typical' pistols) and low (compared to various other rifles). If we are going to discuss why a mass shooter picks the gun then we have fewer subject matter experts. Thus far I only see one that I would really consider strong (Blair). In that case we would quote what ever reasons the expert mentions both for and against even if we don't have an "opposing" view. However, I think it would be better if we could add some additional subject matter expert opinions. Springee (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we already have a consensus to exclude the material that states the AR-15 is very deadly above. Afootpluto (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Military experts have long said that the 5.56x45 NATO is too weak. "Despite incremental improvements, the M16 rifle and its 5.56 mm NATO round are unable to compete effectively in current and anticipated combat environments because of the physics of ballistic performance, combat terrain, and the nature and fighting characteristics of the enemy" Afootpluto (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Which has nothing to say about shooting fish in a barrel. Is it not true that one reason it is popular with hunters is its ability to take down fast moving fleeing targets quickly. Something the military are not interested in but a mass shooter might be? I recall reading (I may have linked it already) a source making just that point, that the issue is the AR-15 turns shootings into mass shootings. What makes it so deadly is not one factor (it's caliber) but a combination of factors, it ROF, ability to cause wounds, ease of use, low recoil, ease of modabilty. It has been suggested that one reason why it is chosen over more "deadly" weapons is that those weapons are simply not quite as effective at being a mass shooting weapon (even though they may be better at taking down an individual Target).Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can find that source and if it is from a subject matter expert I see no reason not to include that information as well as the opinions we already have. Springee (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

springee I disagree with your assement of Chipman on equal footing with Hazon. Chipman works for a advocacy group like the brady organization and his backround is just as a ATF agent. He was not stated to be a Munitions Specialist or Armorer like Hazon, the ATF has these positions as well. Hazon is in three article stated as a gun expert and Blair supporting his views. This article with Chipman does not state he is a gun expert or have any support.

I see his comments of comparing handguns to rifles of a bias nature. He states as a agent they were not allowed to use rifles indoors because of penetration issues when comparing to hand guns. And "adding that the damage the weapon does to the human body pales in comparison to a handgun", "Rifle rounds are so devastating to the human body", this all speaks of being bias. This "the AR-15 is like the 4-door sedan of "assault rifles", you know the civilian rifle is not a assault rifle. So making these clear bias statements diminishes his credibilty. The line "used in mass shootings for two reasons: popularity and lethality." This would try and contradict Hazon and Blair with just one minor mention in one article with advocacy group employee that is not a credited gun expert or a researcher of mass murder. Also not elaborating on his lethality view beyond just comparing a rifle to a hand gun, unlike Hazon and Blair. This would all need to be fleshed out before inclusion but even if agreed to inclusion it would go in the article with other actual expert content and not cancel anything out, that is policy.

The Nation article-David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). several years on the agency’s SWAT team (just a member not Munitions Specialist or Armorer the positions that make Hazon a gun expert). The article only states Tactical Experts. It still does not credit him as a gun expert or mass murder expert. Unlike Hazon who trained the SWAT members and Blair who's program has trained something like 1000,000 law enforcement in the U.S, Chipman was just a trainee on tactics not a trainer. Nothing that Chimpmen says in this article is supported by Blair and Blair does not say he agrees with anything Chimpmen says. In fact in at least one aspect he is a apposing voice.

• Quote-*"Before Stockton, most people didn't even know you could buy those guns," Chris Bartocci, author of the book "Black Rifle II," told CNN in December 2017."This stuff has been around forever; this is not new technology," Bartocci said, adding that the media surrounding the incident helped glorify semi-automatic weapons. This in the article would seem to supports the copycat view.

As to the Stoner presented content, a article in Guns & Ammo. Guns & Ammo July 2018 author Tom Beckstrand title THE GODFATHER'S RETURN.

• Quote-*EugeneStoner is most commonly credited for the AR-15 but that isn't entirely accurate. Stoner designed the AR-10 (he was a .30-caliber man) with Sullivan's as his assistant. Sullivan's input on the AR-10 is why.... The AR-15 was left almost entirely to Jim Sullivanand and the project helped set him on the path of miniaturizing popular rifle designs (His first was the AR-15...). Finally, the U.S Army jacked chamber pressure through the roof in pursuit of better terminal ballistics, which they got at the expense of rifle durability. It is stated the military effort to increase power by increasing pressure to 64,000 psi from the orinal designed ammunition of 50,000 psi. -72bikers (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Sock edits

Drmies, I appreciate your point but HughD, the sock master in question, shouldn't be encouraged by allowing their edits to stand WP:EVADE. I think any material like this should be discussed before being added. As for the specific edit, I'm not saying there isn't some content that might be good but much of the material is general to "assault weapons". If you have sock block authority please do. This IP editor was blocked a little over a week back. In the mean time I'm going to say we need to discuss the content before allowing it to stand. Yes, in part because this was a clear sock edit (see sock history here [[28]] ) Springee (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll look into that, Springee--thanks for the information. (The name sounds familiar.) But I disagree on two counts--that the content should be reverted, and that EVADE should encourage us to revert sock edits. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Public Opinion

I've temporally removed the public opinion section as it was added by a sock and because the material as added has issues with scope and details. In terms of scope the problem is it covers more than just "AR-15s" and thus is more like a question regarding "Assault Weapons" vs AR-15s specifically. There is also the issue of public understanding when asked about gun topics. A number of articles, including by academics have discussed the issue related to public opinion surveys and the degree to which the public doesn't really understand the questions or the ramification of the theoretical proposals. For example, Reason magazine did a survey that asked opinions on assault weapons but also asked the respondents what they thought qualified something as an assault weapon. In some cases over half those surveyed showed they didn't understand the particular question being asked. Such information is very significant when readers are told about the results of a survey. However here's the catch, being Wikipedia it may be SYNTH to mix the results of two different surveys. Also, people may object that, for example, Reason's survey showed people were confused about "assault weapons" but we can't assume they were confused about "AR-15s". Even though I've pulled the sock edit, I do think this is material we could include but it shouldn't be done as a list of survey and results without other context. Springee (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Since the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, AR-15 style rifles have been included in some public opinion polls.

In February 2018 a strong majority (61%) of American registered voters supported banning purchases of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15 style rifles, when asked "Do you think semi-automatic weapons (e.g., AR-15) should be banned for purchase or should adults who pass background checks be allowed to buy them?" according to a poll conducted by the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and Harris Insights & Analytics.

In February 2018 53% of American adults supported a nationwide ban on the AR-15, when asked if they supported a "Nationwide ban on the AR-15" according to a CBS News poll with a margin of error of +/- 4%.

In February 2018 57% of American adults supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of rifles capable of semi-automatic fire such as the AR-15, when asked if they supported "A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of rifles capable of semiautomatic fire, such as the AR-15" according to a CNN/SSRS poll with a margin of error of +/- 3.7%, up from 49% in October 2017.

In March 2018 56% favored "Banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15," according to a Gallup poll.

References

• Suppprt We include noteworthy opinions and public opinion is a noteworthy opinion as per WP:YESPOV. Highly noteworthy reliable mainstream media sources. The public opinion of the subject of this article is a very prominent aspect of the subject of this article. Separate paragraphs for each poll in order to address concerns of synthesis. IAMGreen6 (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

quotes removed by 72bikers here

I think those quotes are valuable, clear, and improve the article. I don't agree they could lead to confusion. 72bikers, care to make the case for why they should be removed from the article? Waleswatcher (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the citations associated with those quotes are redundant given the uncontroversial statement they are supporting. I don't see that the quotes add anything and might confuse readers given they are taking more to the Armalite and Colt military rifles vs the generic AR-15 style rifle. Springee (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. The quote is extremely misleading. When I read the quote I thought they were calling the AR-15 an assault rifle, which it isn't. There has been long consensus not to call the AR-15 an assault rifle. Afootpluto (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• The section specifically refers to the original select-fire ArmaLite AR-15 which, according to consensus and RS, is called an assault rifle. In my opinion, the quotes help clarify how the source supports the statement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not seeing what it adds, but also not seeing how this could cause confusion, how?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The quote makes it sound like that all AR-15s are assault rifles, which is false. This article is about the semi automatic AR-15. Also we already have a small section on the original Armalite AR-15 in the body. Afootpluto (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is an RS is saying it we cannot reject it on the grounds it is false. We do not get to say RS are wrong. Is Christopher R. Bartocci an expert? What about Sam Bocetta? If either or both are experts then we cannot reject what they say as "wrong". There may bed reasons to reject these quotes, incorrectness is not a valid one.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is easily provable that it is false then yes it is a valid reason to reject it. If you look at the definition of an assault rifle, you will see that it has to be a select fire rifle. The AR-15 we are talking about in this article isn't a select fire rifle thus, it isn't an assault rifle. Afootpluto (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Afootpluto: The article does, in fact, discuss the select-fire rifle. The quotes are from that section. –dlthewave ☎ 16:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I see the confusion now. The quotes are specific to the Armalite section, but they appear in the References section without context. Perhaps we could rephrase it as "The [original select-fire] ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle". –dlthewave ☎ 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with rephrasing it to add context. Afootpluto (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that the quotes are inside of a reference aren't needed to support the statements in the article. That said, if it will help make all happy let's rewrite vs just remove. I would suggest getting rid of the first citation (#7) as it goes to the new Armalite company. If I'm not mistaken the new company isn't related to the original company. The second is a good source but the quote shouldn't be there. Embedded quotes should be something like footnotes and offer additional context to support the material in the article. That quote is just a "ra-ra, M-16 is great" sort of thing and doesn't really offer additional understanding of the relationship between the select fire military rifles and the civilian semi-auto models. Ref #8 is also a good one but as stated it would be confusing. According to US law (1994 AWB) a single gun would either be an Assault Weapon or a Machine Gun. It can't be both. Also we have "AR-15s" that didn't qualify as Assault Weapons under the 1994 law. I would be OK with keeping that material but only with additional clarity. The differences are clear in the source but short quotes can be misleading.

Before we add these quotes back into the references, I have to ask, how do they clarify the statements in the article? If the quoted information is important let's put it in the article. If not, leave it out. It doesn't support the article statements in current form. I'm going to try to find some guidance on how Wikipedia thinks we should use the in citation quotes. Springee (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic accusation throwing that is not conducive to resolving the dispute. Mr rnddude (talk)

Summary: 72bikers made an edit to the article, removing some content that has been there since at least early June when the article was protected. I objected to that change and reverted. My edit was reverted by Thomas.W, a violation of the remedies here as there was no consensus for 72bikers' edit. I re-reverted, only to have Mr rnddude again take out the quotes (another violation, there is still no consensus). Do the remedies here mean anything at all? It's seems editors just ignore them at will.Waleswatcher (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I would remind users that the page is under DS, which means you cannot revert a revert. I think this situation is just a tad grey, in that 72bkikers was the first revert (as it removed existing material). But I am noy too sure where we stand in such situations, is that technically a revert.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 72bikers' edit clearly was not a revert - it was an edit that changed the existing text. Ask yourself this - if it was a revert, what edit did it revert? Waleswatcher (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC) The edit that removed the text. As I said this is (I think) a grey area. I do not think this is the right venue for this discussion, and would suggest this is taken to an admin notice board. I will not do it as I am not sure who made the violation, but someone did.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 72bikers partially reverted this edit. Afootpluto (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC) From March? Thanks for making my point. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Just because it was slipped into the article around March really doesn't mean anything. Especially since it was kinda hidden. I don't really check the reference sections in articles much. So until I saw the revert I didn't even know it was there. But it still doesn't change the fact that 72 challenged it. Afootpluto (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Let start with this first. On what grounds do you remove the quotes of content already in the article providing the reader with just context of who the recognized experts are and briefly elaborate on there views of copycatting solely. You said "I've already explained." There is no specific reasoning given for it on this talk page. Nor does it appear that any other editor has shown specific support of your removal. The content was not even controversial. -72bikers (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "If it is an RS is saying it we cannot reject it on the grounds it is false. We do not get to say RS are wrong. Is Christopher R. Bartocci an expert? What about Sam Bocetta? If either or both are experts then we cannot reject what they say as "wrong". There may bed reasons to reject these quotes, incorrectness is not a valid one.Slatersteven (talk)" Slatersteven you seem to be contradicting yourself and imply a double standard. You and WW have repeatedly removed RS expert views. You and he have also stated numerous times that content could be included only if the wound content (that consensus rejected) is included. I am pretty sure that tactic is not supported by any policy. -72bikers (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Stop talking about other users actions, and that is all I will say in response to this, discus edits not actions.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I also think I "rephrasing it to add context" possibly. As it was it looked like the source was implying all AR-15's are assault rifles. Probably just removing base on the mislead and it offers no real additional content. -72bikers (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with dlthewave's suggestion above.Waleswatcher (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As above. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Enough There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC) WW, it is clear at this point consensus doesn't support inclusion and you haven't offered anything beyond 'because I don't agree' to justify the reversal. Others, myself included have. This looks like obstructionist WP:GAMEing on your part. I would suggest you self revert your recent third revert before this goes to WP:AE. Springee (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Springee, I disagree with everything you just said - there quite clearly is and was no consensus, I have provided many reasons, and I am not the one gaming and wikilawyering here. I hope an admin will take a look at this. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) We had a consensus that it should be modified or removed. Only one who disagrees is you. Afootpluto (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I think we need to stop this discussion until it is decided who (and if) violated DS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Agree with Slatersteven. An uninvolved admin needs to assess which edit was challenged and whether there was preexisting consensus, otherwise we're just going in circles. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I am now asking that any and all accusations of violating DS are taken to AE, not here. Stop accusing other users (this is not the correct place) and report them.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that these quotes need to be reworked for clarity and context. I have different issues with each quote, so I'll lay them out here:

Quote 1: These are two of the main reasons why the AR-15/M16-series rifles are considered the finest human-engineered assault rifles in the world.

Issue 1:"These are two of the main reasons ..." is out of context. Nowhere in the Wikipedia article are the two reasons named. Proposed fix: "These are two of the main reasons why [T]he AR-15/M16 series rifles...". Alternatively, just name the two reasons as in "[Because of X and Y] the AR-15/M16 series rifles ...".

Issue 2: "The AR-15/M16 series rifles..." - Well, clarifying looks simple here, just drop in "Armalite" and move on, however, while the M16 is an adaptation of the ArmaLite AR-15, it's actually produced by Colt. So you can't just plop in "[T]he [Armalite] AR-15/M16 series rifles..." as this implies that the M16 is an ArmaLite production. Maybe "[T]he [ArmaLite] AR-15/[Colt] M16 series rifles...", but how would that look?

Other than that, the quote is ostensibly fine.

Quote 2: The ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle....Ironically enough, the AR-15 fits both of these descriptions [assault rifle and assault weapon]: it's a military style rifle that was illegal during the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Same quote, but with the lacuna filled in: The ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle. You might know it better as an M-16, the U.S. Military's version of the weapon. Today, we are going to take you through the history of this iconic American weapon, from its inception in 1959 to the present day. [Page break] A common misconception about the AR-15 is that "AR" stands for "assault rifle," a phrase that stems from the German "Sturmgewehr" ("Storm" or "assault" rifle) used in World War II propaganda posters and later applied to military-style weapons. This shouldn't be confused with the term "Assault Weapon," a legal term for a specific class of illegal firearm during the years 1994 to 2004. [Page break] Ironically enough, the AR-15 fits both of these descriptions: it's a military style rifle that was illegal during the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The "AR" in the name, however, stands for the name of the manufacturer: ArmaLite.

Issue 1: "Ironically enough, the AR-15 fits both of these descriptions [assault rifle and assault weapon]" - Um... yes and no. The ArmaLite AR-15 meets the first description, the Colt AR-15 meets the second description. Neither firearm meets both descriptions. I have no idea what to do with this. On a side note, an electronics engineer is a strange source to use for quotes in a firearms article. Given the topic, there must be much better sources available for a similar, yet more accurate, quote.

Separate question: "[I]t's a military style rifle" - meaning what? As a non-American, though I've heard the phrase a lot, I don't know what this is supposed to convey.

This is all I can think of for the moment. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

So how do these quotes actually help support the article text? Consider two example texts

There are 8 planets in the solar system (ref: itle=Example Ref| quote="When Pluto was declared not a planet the number was reduced from 9 to 8" /ref)

The planets orbit around the sun (ref: title=Example 2| quote="Saturn is a gas planet and the second largest in the solar system" /ref)

In the first case the quote helps clarify for those who were taught there are 9 planets in the solar system and is thus directly related to/supports the article text. In the second case the material is only indirectly related and in no way clarifies the article text.

This is what I found thus far regarding the use of quotes.[[29]]

Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting (particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source – see § Bundling citations and § Text–source integrity, below).

A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible.

I don't see how either support inclusion here. The article statement is, "In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15.". Neither quote actually support that claim nor do they tell us where the claim is supported in the cited texts. Since it doesn't tell us where the material is supported in the cited text #1 is out. Also, neither is a long version of a excerpted quote presented in the wiki article. Thus the quotes don't support the article and shouldn't be included. That isn't to say the information in the quotes couldn't be included in the actual article text but that, as is, they don't belong. Absent changes to the article text I support the removal. Springee (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the quotes were meant to point to explicit statements from the sources stating that the Armalite AR-15 is an assault rifle. There were a number of IPs edit-warring some months back to remove the words assault rifle from that sentence: This, this, this and this. The quote "The ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle" from the Small Wars Journal article does this on its own, the rest of it is filler (confused filler at that). Options include removing the quotes as there is no burden to "prove" the statement using quotes, only verifiable citations; or creating a dedicated footnote clarifying that the ArmaLite AR-15 is an assault rifle with quotes and a bundled citation. I don't mind either option; I only mind having the quotes reinstated without clarification. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You have that backwards. As per the DS on this article the quotes should be reinstated immediately as is, then we should discuss and reach consensus on how to clarify them. I am refraining from doing that for the moment only because there is an active notice board discussion of this, and because we seem to be making progress here. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is against restoring the quotes as they were. Springee (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur. -72bikers (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You needed consensus to remove them. No consensus is needed to restore them as they were.Waleswatcher (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is not to include the quote in the article as they were. Afootpluto (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's not how it works. But rather than argue over procedure, why not find an actual consensus? Does anyone object to dlthewave's suggestion? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

WW, you have added text against consensus. Please revert yourself. Springee (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my prosition, I am for the complete removal of the quotes. But to reach a consensus, I don't mind having them edited. Afootpluto (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I had previously typed up a reply that was lost so I'll go again. I oppose WW's recent edit. It does make sense to include a statement about the AWB but that is largely covered in the production and sales section later. Now we have the included quotes. The first one should be removed for the reason previously stated. The second was moved but given the cutting of the statements from the article it's not really clear what is being described and how it is needed to support the article text. Springee (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the two editors above. I would also state there seems to be a lot of double standards and contradictions going on with quotes in this article.-72bikers (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

I wanted to start this before the edit block is lifted. My read is there is a consensus to remove the quotes as was done here [[30]]. These removals are supported by 72bikers, Thomas.W, Afootpluto, Mr rnddude and myself. Waleswatcher supports inclusion. dlthewave and Slatersteven are neutral with a view that the material could be made to work with edits. At this point I think we have a consensus for removal. WW added a new edit before the article was closed. I don't support the changes for reasons I outlined previously. I don't think anyone else has weighed in on those changes. Springee (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed.

In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15

Supporting citation quote These are two of the main reasons why the [original select-fire] AR-15/M16-series rifles are considered the finest human-engineered assault rifles in the world.

This comment "These are two of the main reasons" does not appear to reflect the article statement. This quote brings nothing to the article that would help the reader understand the article content, in fact it brings the opposite. The article statement is straightforward, simply stating the year created and the name designation, nothing that would need further explanation.

Also to have to add statements that is not in the source to a quote so that the readers does not misunderstand it would speak to this being a prime example of a quote in need of removal. We should remove the superfluous to make room for the essential. -72bikers (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• The material can't be "made to work" with edits, since they're quotes, and you can't edit quotes; if they're edited they're no longer quotes but editorialising/opinions, and there most definitely shouldn't be any editorialising/opinions within reference tags, visible only in the reference list, well out of context. That's not what reference tags are for. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Brackets are commonly used to clarify quotes when context is given elsewhere in the source. These quotes originally served the purpose of pointing out the that these sources support using the "assault rifle" terminology to describe the Armalite AR-15, at a time when editors were often calling this fact into question. At this point the issue seems to be resolved and there are plenty of old talk page discussions to back it up, so I don't see a need to include the quotes. I don't find them misleading or problematic but they also don't really help the reader. I agree with Springee that there is current consensus for removal. –dlthewave ☎ 14:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current consensus is to remove the quotes. I see the reason they were included originally, but I don't think they are necessary or particularly helpful. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been no new comments in the consensus building thread above in several days, and no comments here since mine 36 hours ago. The editing protection has been lifted, and I have effected the consensus that has developed here and above. This does not preclude further discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Shall we now now trim some of this citation overkill -72bikers (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this now does not appear to be about quotes, but removing cites. I am not sure there it cite overkill.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ that citation is thicc (sic). There are two ways to trim the cite bundle: 1) Remove the quotes within, and frankly, it might be an idea to draw a consensus against having quotes in the citations; or 2) Remove some the seven citations from the bundle. Three high quality sources is enough for this statement. To paraphrase citation overkill; if you have six references to a statement, and three of them are to highly reputable sources, drop everything but those three. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is I am not sure that any more then 3 of these are used to support any one statement. What we appear to have is a lot of sources from one section (not statement) bundled together in a way they are not in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A while back there was a big fight about the phrase, "weapon of choice" in the article. It was felt a large number of quotes was needed to show the phrase was widely used. While I think this is overkill, bundling effectively dealt with the issue of article readability. I would be happy to see things cut down to something reasonable but given the disputes related to the material last time I would generally say leave it alone. Springee (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we need to have a clear definition of what we are discussing, removing cites or cutting down quotes within them. I agree the quotes are too long, I do not really see much of a violation of overcite (which is not about the size of a cite, but the number of them).Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support removing 100% of the quotes from citations in the article, though I would be open to exceptions for translations, offline, and/or paywalled sources supporting WP:REDFLAG types of info in the body. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be all over the place on this. How about we start with trimming some of the citations first before quote trimming, this seem like the logical approach. Lets all try and come together and let the guidelines guide us to do what's best for the article. 10 citations for one statement is clear overkill (threshold starts at 6). Springee seems to be echoing what the guidelines say on how these situations come about. "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit."

Guidance

• Sources that are opinional in nature – op-eds, advocacy materials, and other primary sources – can usually simply be dropped unless necessary to verify quotations that are necessary for reader understanding of the controversy.

• If there are six citations on a point of information, and the first three are highly reputable sources (e.g., books published by university presses), and the last three citations are less reputable or less widely circulated (e.g., local newsletters), then trim out those less-reputable sources.

• while others are only interpretative, summarizing, or opinionated. If the authoritative sources are not controversial, they should generally be preferred.

• Not all such works on a topic need be cited – choose the one or ones that seem to be the best combination of eminent, balanced, and current.

• A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided.

• However, adding a reference to already verified material merely to get the reference into the article is not a good practice.-72bikers (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Naw. Fix the quotes in the citations first, it will make it easier to assess if the number of overall citations is excessive. Learn to indent. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I Oppose on the grounds that this only exists because certain users demanded we prove it was a common view. So until we have a commitment to not use a lack of sources to demand we remove those same claims I will not support reducing the sources for them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly that is not a issue now. I would also would point out your reasoning appears to duplicate Springee and "...after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit."

With your concerns easily addressed. I would count you as a support. -72bikers (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, as you have not in fact answered my question. Do you agree to not use a lack of sourcing to try and remove the claims currently sourced using the sources you wish removed? A simple yes or no will suffice. Also read wp:indent as the next time I am not sure who you are replying to I will not reply.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As I have stated your concerns are not necessary. No one is removing the statement and we are not removing all of the citations. I myself and almost all of the other editor are not trying to remove the statement, please do not be concerned with one rouge editor. So again with your concerns addressed I would count you as a support. -72bikers (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Rouge editor, eh? Is a Cabal involved? –dlthewave ☎ 19:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As others have pointed out, the statement was challenged as lacking sources, so editors added the large number of cites and quotes as a way to show that the statement is indeed supported by multiple sources. WP:WEIGHT only requires that sources supporting the viewpoint exist; we don't necessarily need to include all of them in the article. I would support trimming the list while retaining the full list and quotes within this talk page section for future reference in case it is challenged again. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Retaining in this talk page discussion as it is now I do not believe will be a issue. It would also be in the edit history as well so I do not believe there is any chance of it getting lost. -72bikers (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Also agree that if the question of inclusion comes up the previous discussions can be referenced. I would suggest 2-3 citations from the most respected sources and remove the rest. Springee (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment That sounds logical Springee. I would suggest keeping 3 of the most respected sources. I would say a toss-up of these 4, CNN, USA Today, The New York Times, ABC. I would include CBS in the toss-up but it is a subdivision on finance, CBS MoneyWatch. -72bikers (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly oppose removing any of these sources. They were put in after many, many hours of fights here on this talk page, quite possibly involving some of the editors in favor of removing them now, over whether "weapon of choice" etc were accurate. Leave them alone. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• [T]hey were put in after many, many hours of fights here on this talk page - Not quite true. The citation overkill was added by BullRangifer at 05:56, 17 March 2018 without a discussion, and without a challenge (I scoured archives 1 and 2 for a hint of it being discussed, and came back with nada). You're mixing a dispute over some word choice, with a dispute over the whole thing. That wording dispute was resolved by changing and have come to be widely characterized in the mainstream media to and have come to be widely characterized. I have no idea how that happened, the talkpage thread just abruptly ends with no obvious consensus, as does the RSN discussion. On a separate note, it is rather amazing, and utterly ridiculous, that a single sentence can amount to nearly 5,000 bytes. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As I said in my first comment on this thread: [t]hree high quality sources is enough for this statement. The only question is: which three? I'll put forth the NYT, ABC and USA Today articles as my choice for the three. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Which statement are we talking about, I see 4 which have three cites. Are we suggesting reducing this to one cite for each of those three statements?Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Look at citation #61. It's a bundle citation with nine sources enclosed within (I counted seven the first time, but I noticed two others in there as well). It takes up most of the right side of the references section, and is ungodly when hovered over in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh I see now, so when I asked what are we discussing this could have been said to start with. OK no issue with trimming this one cite, taking into account the above comments about this not being sued as a justification to remove the content.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven the citation overkill being discussed has been shown below from the start of this section 4 days ago.

So when I asked "what are we talking about" no one thought to say "this passage". It was clear I was not aware we were talking about one line (in part caused by the fact this originally was appended to the section above, thus leading me to think it was in some way related). A section about removing citation quotes (not citations) as was clear form my response, I was not sure whether or not what was being suggested was citation or quote removal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I support the three sources proposed to be left in the article, NYT, ABC and USA Today. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Quotes removed by Waleswatcher here

I think these quotes are valuable, help clarify, and improve the article. They help the reader with context to who the recognized experts are and expand on there view. Waleswatcher, care to make the case for why they should be removed from the article?

• "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder... The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”

• "Hazen said the AR-15 has "gotten a bad rap." He believes mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation it has gotten from being used in other mass shootings."

These were removed on 7-15 it is now 7-25 and to date there has not been any explanation given except "I've already explained", "Fully agreed", "cannot be added to the article without consensus". When and were on this page do you give a legitimate explanation? --72bikers (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've explained in detail at least three times. You cannot keep adding the same or nearly identical material, and each time insist that everyone opposed again explain themselves. Stop beating this dead horse. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet again you have failed to engage. You need to explain your actions, here and now. You removed this 10 days ago and have repeatedly refused to give any reason for your actions.

Failure to explain your action and attempting to pacify by stating at one time you expressed dislike for something similar is not a accepted reason. Can you present a policy that support that action? Since you failed to provide your reasons, I have taken the time to provide them for you. Your welcome.

[31] Slatersteven is correct. The statements regarding the lack of lethality of the AR-15 are a violation of NPOV (since the mainstream view is in fact the opposite, and that's backed up by many, many reliable sources, but none of that is included), and the stuff about the police is simply not relevant. User_talk:Waleswatcher 7:29 pm, 12 June 2018, Tuesday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−4) Wanting wound content included in exchange.

[32] A shortened, cleaned up version of that could be added, but only if we also include other points of view on the lethality of AR-15s, and why shooters choose them. User_talk:Waleswatcher 10:42 pm, 21 June 2018, Thursday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4) Wanting wound content in exchange.

[33]Date content was accepted into the article 13:42, July 3, 2018‎ No wound content. [34]Date content change by admin Drimies after SS repeatedly altered it 21:04, July 3, 2018 [35]Date quotes first included in article 12:03, July 6, 2018 [36] Date quotes first removed 12:06, July 6, 2018

[37] It makes no sense to discuss lethality there - not without a more general discussion of the lethality of this rifle compared to others. User_talk:Waleswatcher 7:07 am, 6 July 2018, Friday (19 days ago) (UTC−4) Again wants wound content in exchange.

[38] The problem isn't so much WP:DUE, it's context and proper writing. If we tell the reader there that mass shooters don't choose the AR-15 because of its lethality, they wouldn't be sure if that means they don't choose it because it is very lethal, or because it isn't, or because mass shooters think it is even though it isn't, or what. It's just out of the blue. But to establish any of those possibilities, we need more sources and text that are out of place in a section on mass shootings. The whole thing is already unbalanced - we have an extremely concise summary of the shootings themselves, and then a relatively long sentence about shooter's motivations for choosing the AR. User_talk:Waleswatcher 9:11 am, 6 July 2018, Friday (19 days ago) (UTC−4) Again wants wound content in exchange.

I will not speculate as to why you did not want to show your reasons. These comments are in chronological order. Content in exchange appears to be the narrative. You have also based your argument on a misunderstanding on most of the content of lethality. These two quotes do not speak of any lethgality. Are you arguing it does? Or are you arguing content has to be included in exchange? Will you please state why you removed the content. I see no legitimate or relevant reason from your previous statement for removing these quotes. -72bikers (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, the first quote is poorly formatted, making it impossible to follow. What are all those "..."s doing in there? Who is even being quoted? For the second, Hazen is not an expert on mass shooters' motivations. It's also unclear what "bad rep" refers to.

More generally, if we're going to have this much material discussing shooters'motivations for choosing the ar-15, we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion. We should add a paragraph describing why the ar-15 is so lethal. That is both more pertinent and more fact-based then speculations about motivation. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

[I]f we're going to have this much material discussing shooters'motivations for choosing the ar-15, we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion - Why? These quotes are in the references section and their only function is to provide evidence for the claim that Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect which is already in the article. You know, in the same way that the two quotes being discussed above provide evidence for the claim that the ArmaLite AR-15 is an assault rifle. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So your objections you said you already stated were that there needs to be more content you like in exchange?

Formatting is a easy fix. An ellipsis is [39], [40] just to help you out there. The source clearly shows Blair and Hazon are in agreement on the copycat view. It is not clear what you refer there. There are many comments in the article of how they have come to there conclusions and it all makes sense. No Fringe Theory. The claiming you don't understand bad rap[41] common knowledge is not a legitimate reason. What are you trying state here "we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion."? Why? Can you show a policy that supports your view? "We should add a paragraph describing why the ar-15 is so lethal." for just two quotes in the citation that is already in the article. Why? this line "That is both more pertinent and more fact-based then speculations about motivation." so you are saying this content is not credible? How is this content not "pertinent"? What would you call "more pertinent"? -72bikers (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

“In the U.S., our go-to rifle is the AR-15. It’s known as the American rifle,” former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen said “Most police departments carry it; our military carries a militarized version of it. In some mass shootings, the shooter had low knowledge of firearms. They just grabbed what they know, and that’s the AR-15.”

Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder -- echoed Hazen's comments.

The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof,” he added.

“You’re in an ambiguous situation and you don’t know what to do that. That can be looking at what silverware other people use at a fancy dinner party and copying them, or it can be using the same type of weapon other shooters have used if you’re planning a mass shooting.”

Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”

Proposed new text for the quote. If there is any objections please state exactly what content objecting to and why. -72bikers (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are proposing adding this as an embedded quote in a reference? If so, oppose for editorial reasons. We do not need more quotes in the ref section for this article, and those that we have should be heavily pruned. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We have a quote that misleads readers to misunderstand article content that a editor has now added his own words to a quote. We have quotes in a citation for a advocacy group in a list of ten citations all just supporting just one statement with extended quotes.

My content addresses and bring readers a understanding of why the article weapon is being chosen in mass shootings.

• AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[52] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.

• Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.

But we now draw the line on a in citation quote that simply would provide the reader with context of who the recognized experts are and that further explains the copycat reasoning.

I agree there are too many extended in citation quotes that are superfluous. But were is the logic of keeping the irrelevant and overkill? Then denying expert credentials and explanations and reasonings of why being chosen.

Should we add the content directly to the article? Should we remove the superfluous to make room for the essential? -72bikers (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.”

Amended quote that merely states the experts credentials, and they are in agreement on the copycat assessment. -72bikers (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr I have said this before, and wholly agree with you, and not any other user.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We are already discussing this above, is that thread now closed?Slatersteven (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

An alternative approach to lethality

If we add a section on use of these rifles for hunting, such as the following suggested text, there are numerous sources discussing the suitability of various cartridges, including the most common 5.56×45mm NATO, for killing large mammals. Thewellman (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hunting

Some hunters prefer using AR-15 style rifles because of their versatility, accuracy, and wide variety of available features. Collapsible stocks are convenient for hunters who pack their rifles into remote hunting locations. Construction with lightweight polymers and corrosion-resistant alloys makes these rifles preferred for hunting in moist environments with less concern about rusting or warping wood stocks. Positioning of the AR-15 safety is an improvement over traditional bolt action hunting rifles. Many states require hunters to use reduced-capacity magazines, but the self-loading feature is important when shooting pack animals like coyote so several may be killed before the pack disperses and hides. If a hunter misses with a first shot, the self-loading feature enables rapid followup shots against dangerous animals like feral pigs or rapidly moving animals like jackrabbits. Hunters shooting larger game animals often use upper receivers and barrels adapted for larger cartridges or heavier bullets. Several states consider .22 caliber cartridges like the 5.56×45mm NATO inadequate to ensure a clean kill.

This is some of the stuff I have referred to, the fact it is in fact it has a reputation for its ability to shoot large numbers of fast moving targets well.17:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And that rapid-fire feature of AR-15 style rifles configured for self-loading from high-capacity and/or detachable magazines may be considered independently from the different wounding effects of the spectrum of cartridges for which these rifles may be configured. Thewellman (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a logical idea. -72bikers (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Quote removed by Slatersteven[42]

"How simple do you want it, you said they say X they do not say X. If they say X (X not Y) quote then saying X (not Y X). They do not say anything about the gunmens perceptions other then not knowing a lot about firearms, think about it, think about. They make no statement about what the gunmen think about the guns effectiveness (think about it).Slatersteven (talk) 3:32 am, Yesterday (UTC−4) "

Again you do not use any specific content that was provided. It would appear you have no legitimate view so you try and make some obscure view that only you see. SS why do you keep using this double talk, and double standards? You say "We do not analyise sources"[43] yet here you are trying to do just that. You say "If it is an RS is saying it we cannot reject it on the grounds it is false"[44] yet here you are trying to do just that. You say " We do not get to say RS are wrong"[45] yet here you are trying to do just that. You say ". Is Christopher R. Bartocci an expert? What about Sam Bocetta? If either or both are experts then we cannot reject what they say as "wrong"[46] yet here you are trying to do just that. You say "There may bed reasons to reject these quotes, incorrectness is not a valid one"[47] yet here you are trying to do just that. It would appear you are contradicting yourself, even if the content was false or wrong or incorrect (though it is not). Do you still state there is no double standard. I make no claims or interpretations of the content, the content is the content.

• Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. This comment just using the word does not imply the AR lacks lethality. Just more support of the selection being based on copycat.

• "Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used." This also does not state the AR in the used caliber of .223 lacks lethality. But simply states the obvious and common knowledge there are more powerful calibers than the .223 and that the AR could be purchased in or even converted to after purchase, but this was not being done. Just more support of the selection being copycat.

• "Hazen says the AK-47 — and its semiautomatic variants — is a "far more wicked gun than an AR-15." "and use larger 7.62 mm rounds as opposed to the standard AR-15's .223 rounds." I assume this is the content that your argument is based on. Stating there are larger calibers than the .223 and states the obvious and common knowledge there are more powerful calibers than the .223 and gives a example. Just more support of the selection just being based on copycat.

• Some killers might be drawn to the AR-15 because they are the "weapon of choice" for the military and police. But ironically, the police "choose it because it is under-powered, Hazen said, "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." The Army is considering moving to a higher-caliber rifle partly because that would make the weapon more deadly." The specific statement on the army would be the strongest content for a argument of denial. The police statement reason for police choice would be strongly supported by a 25 years SWAT Team Operator, Munitions Specialist, Armorer. But granted debatable on inclusion on copycat selection in article.

Again here is the content that I believe you are in denial of, if something was left out please state. Will you please stay on topic and address specific content. You have said before you will not let this content to be included unless opposing content (the wound content) be included. You have said before this content states (incorrectly) that it says the weapon is not lethal. Are these you views? If so will you clearly and precisely show exactly what specific statement or words you are referring to. Will you then provide what policy or RS that would support your claims of denial. -72bikers (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this section is about you. -72bikers (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant, I am not the subject of the article, and we already have multiple threads about these quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: please address the quote you removed. This section was created on your request to deal with just your actions. Are you refusing to state why you removed and challenge a quote?

Quote removed. Dean Hazen, ...said the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle. "It’s really just a perception thing," Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used." For example, Hazen says the AK-47.

Will you address what issues you have with this quote. Please be very specific and state clearly your objections. Do not use some random analogy. Clarify what words in the quote do you feel is inaccurate or misleading. Your edit summery stated "We have disused this, it is not the word it is the subject." What subject are you referring to that would exclude RS recognized expert statements, that has been already accepted into the article? Will you then provide what policy or RS that would support your claims of denial.

I did not request this, I said we should keep it all in on place, not start up yet another thread. I have stated my objections, and unless another user say they are not clear what they are I am not going to (yet again in yet another thread) repeat them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This section was created to have a conversation about your action and your action only. What other section you choose to voice on is your own prerogative. You are not held accountable to others actions just your own. Will you now speak to your actions and please address what issues you have with the quote you removed. -72bikers (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have (repeatedly) and The reason I said it was my last reply in that thread was because you had started one on more or less the same topic. Now as I have said if another users is not sure what my objections are they can ask, I would then think, that maybe I had not been clear.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: No all I did was separate your discussion on the quote you removed from the discussion on WW quote removal.

To date there has not been any evidence produced that make a case for denial of this content inclusion based on only if unrelated wound content (that consensus denied) be included. No policy showed or quoted supports that argument. So it is not entirely clear if this is still your reason, if so we could then have further discussion or asking for a outside opinion to resolve this specific issue.

Your edit summary "We have disused this, it is not the word it is the subject." I have asked repeatedly as to what you are referring with this statement. Are you still contending the accepted expert are not experts in your eyes? Or are you referring still to content that you have not specifically presented that attest the weapon is not lethal. And then in your eyes is a inaccuracy. If you would speak to exactly what specific words or statements it wold be helpful in clearing all this up and returning content that helps the reader with context.

I have provided all of your pertinent comments from the above discussion on quotes. You have repeatedly stated you did not want to repeat any previous statements so I brought them here for reference. I have also provided comment from two other editors that have stated like me how your explanstions of removing quotes is not legitament reason. And to address this specific quote removal In just one section.

[48]…If you want to add your quotes (without the contested material) go ahead,... Slatersteven (talk) 15 July 2018, Sunday (13 days ago) This is exactly what I was trying to ascertain. You stated this but did not clarify "without the contested material" other than excessive demands. This is why I persisted to ty and come to some logical agreement.

• No I excluded it based upon the fact we do not discus the other side of that debate... Slatersteven (talk) 15 July 2018, Sunday (13 days ago)[49]

• I am objecting to using citation quotes to include material that has been rejected ion the body Now we have had multiple threads about including mention of the fact that some "experts" have said these guns are not that dangerous and that they are not being chosen for their effectiveness at killing. Again it is not about one word, it is about the subject. We either have material about the debate about the guns effectiveness (or lack of it) or we do not. What we do not do is put one side of an argument. Hell it even says the very thing you claim you were not trying to say, that the gun is not as dangerous as others.Slatersteven (talk) 15 July 2018, Sunday(13 days ago)[50]

• ...Some claim the gun is not very lethal, others claim (or maybe they are the same) that the gun is not the most deadly. Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding. Thus it is not simply as black and white as you present it. If we list why it is chosen we have the list all the supposed reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 16 July 2018, Monday (12 days ago)[51]

• No expert that I am aware of have said that the AR-15 is chosen because of how lethal it is... Afootpluto (talk) 16 July 2018, Monday (12 days ago)[52]

• ...Slatersteven, I don't think your "other side" argument is valid here. That said, we don't need to create a false debate. If the experts all seem to agree then we say what they feel. We don't include opinions of non-experts just to create a sense of 'argument among experts' in the discussion. I agree with 72bikers that we should be more consistent in how we handle these quotes. Why include the Brady Campaign quote but not ones from an expert source?... Springee (talk) 15 July 2018, Sunday (13 days ago)[53]

• And who are these "experts" (for example why is a criminologist an expert but not a medical professional?)) (as I also said in the lethality debate) those "experts" were responding to claims made about the gun, thus it seems odd that if to not include what they choose to respond to.Slatersteven (talk) 16 July 2018, Monday (12 days ago)[54]

• ...And RS saying they are experts does not make them so, being recognized as such by some form of formal recognition does. So are you saying that a newspaper would ask for a quote about guns from people they do not think are authoritative (yes that includes the Brady Campaign). Are you really saying that as long as an RS call them an expert then we can quote them as one? What about its members if they are experts then surely it must have expertise [13], or is it only the press that get to assign expertise? Slatersteven (talk)[55]

• ...lets have both sides of why these guns are being used. Lets have reference to their accuracy And lets not have this attitude that says who are and are not experts based upon what an interviewing sources calls them If someones views are given as authoritative then there is no reason to reject them just because you do not think they are an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 17 July 2018, Tuesday (11 days ago)[56]

• To have "both sides" you need to find experts on the other side. I haven't seen any experts presented that contradict what we have thus far. We don't have other sources that could reasonably say why these guns are selected. If you feel we have other sources that are experts which ones? Brady wouldn't be. Springee (talk) 17 July 2018, Tuesday (11 days ago)[57]

• We have "experts" (such as medical professionals) saying these weapons are unusually dangerous, thus if we include the claim they are not we must include the claim they are. And again, why ids the Brady campaign not an expert? So what makes him not an expert? Slatersteven (talk) 6:29 17 July 2018, Tuesday (11 days ago)[58]

• Slatersteven, remember, the topic was why the weapons are picked. In this case the question is why are mass shooters selecting the weapons. In that case a trauma surgeon wouldn't typically be the expert. Instead people like criminologists would be the SMEs... Springee (talk) 17 July 2018, Tuesday (11 days ago)[59]

• We have several external news sources that are generally considered reliable telling us that the people in question are experts in relevant areas. That is how we have established them as experts. None of the news sources are saying Brady or the surgeons are experts in why particular weapons are picked. Springee (talk) 17 July 2018, Tuesday (11 days ago)[60]

• When did I accept they are experts, I think (throughout) I have asked "what makes them experts"... Slatersteven (talk) 1 17 July 2018, Tuesday (11 days ago)[61]

• I am saying (Christ how many times) that it does not matter where we discus it if we put one sides view that these guns ate not significantly more dangerous then others we must also put the other side of the debate (even if they are "only" medical experts. What about this confuses you?Slatersteven (talk) 18 July 2018, Wednesday (10 days ago)[62]

• I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts". "alleged "experts" do not get special notice here on Wikipedia, no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk) 20 July 2018, Friday (8 days ago)[63]

• What I am saying is they do not say the gunmen do not view these an exceptionally lethal, all they say is that the gunmen do not know enough to know anything about them. What they do say is that they (that is to say the people being quoted) do not think these gun sare unusually or exceptional lethal... Slatersteven (talk) 25 July 2018, last Wednesday (3 days ago)[64]

So to date we have your highlights saying you removed for.

• those "experts" were responding to claims made about the gun, excluded it based upon the fact we do not discus the other side of that debate
• the fact that some "experts" have said these guns are not that dangerous and that they are not being chosen for their effectiveness at killing. Again it is not about one word, it is about the subject. We either have material about the debate about the guns effectiveness (or lack of it) or we do not. What we do not do is put one side of an argument.
• if we put one sides view that these guns ate not significantly more dangerous then others we must also put the other side of the debate (even if they are "only" medical experts
• We have "experts" (such as medical professionals) saying these weapons are unusually dangerous, thus if we include the claim they are not we must include the claim they are
• I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts". "alleged "experts" do not get special notice here on Wikipedia
• ..And RS saying they are experts does not make them so,
• When did I accept they are experts

From the highlights that I have compiled here from your comments, I believe this summary accurately reflects your views on the quote you removed.

You are saying it is a policy violation to expand on content accepted into the article without some opposing view content you have failed to provide, other than, your want to include unrelated content (wound content) that was denied from the article. You state the two recognized accepted experts are not experts but would allow there views in the article if the docters from the wound content article were allowed to be presented as a opposing voice. Even though they are not recognized ballistic experts or recognized gun experts and there opinions were just a comparison that stated rifle wounds are more severe than those from handguns. -72bikers (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

User:72bikers, take a look at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, item 4b. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The quotes should be reinstated, there is no reason why they shouldn't be in the article. Afootpluto (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

Proposed expansion of Terminology section moved to talk for discussion:

"AR-15-style often refers more to a gun’s appearance than any precisely agreed-upon set of specific technical features", according to Rob Walker in The New Yorker magazine in 2016. "The term AR-15 has become a catchall that includes a variety of weapons that look and operate similarly, including the Remington Bushmaster, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and the Springfield Armory Saint", according to The New York Times in 2018.

References

• Support Brings new important sources to article. Clarifies popular usage of the term in contrast with technical definitions. Noteworthy main stream media sources. Clarification from reliable sources aides readers and helps resolve an area of conflict between editors. IAMGreen6 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)