Talk:AR-15–style rifle

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)

Thanks for making my point for me! Waleswatcher (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make your point, it refutes it. I'm calling out the factual inaccuracy of your !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it really quite perfectly proves my point.

Incidentally, the last source (Brady Campaign) played a role in a number of these talk page debates, as it characterizes AR-15s as the "weapon of choice" but is not a media source. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

*shrugs* the rest of the readers will get it, don't worry. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:56, 8 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. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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)
• Support Certainly for removing the excess quotes in the citation but also, since this is archived here, yes let's cut it down to 3 citations. The previous NYT, ABC and USA Today suggestion is fine with me. Springee (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

With no other comments, looks like time to pull the trigger. -72bikers (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Rough count: VQuakr supported removing quotes, not necessarily removing sources. Slatersteven opposed removing citations, although perhaps changed their mind about citation 61? I opposed removing any. dlthewave supported trimming the list, but not necessarily down to three. Mr rnddude, Springee, and 72bikers support this. That does not look like a clear consensus, unless some of the equivocal users in fact support it. Anyone? Waleswatcher (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am also in favor of trimming the quotes. Afootpluto (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Smells of wikilawyering. Springee (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

acceptance is the last step. -72bikers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This maybe why we have some confusion over consensus, and why I think this was baldy handled form the off (as I said from the off). We have been asked to "vote" on two different issues, and in one of them, (the issue of quotes) no specific suggestion has been made as to what we should remove. As such

(This had been added for clarity) Let me make this clear the suggestion about quotes is not about cite 61, but rather the general question of cites in this article, I think this show exactly what the problem is, even some of the support -s might well change to opposes if we re-word the question. After all if we reduce the cites in cite 61 we could just remove the ones with excess quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reduced citations in cite 61

Support

• It is clear there are too many, and as we have assurances this will not be misused.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support reduction to 3 per above discussion. If the statement is questioned we can revisit this discussion and the original discussion. Springee (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is no reason to have that many citations. So I support trimming them. Afootpluto (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• As stated above already, support reduction to 3 per above discussion. -72bikers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Trim down to 3 citations. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support reducing to 3 per Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Reduced citation quotes

Support

• In general yes but is this referring to the overly long citation 61 or in general. In general quotes should only be used when it isn't clear how the source supports the facts in the article or if the sources have limited access or if the article has a small quote taken from a large quote. None of those apply in the case of citation 61 but may apply other places in the article. So in the case of citation 61, remove them. In general, no since I haven't reviewed all examples. Springee (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Quotes in my opinion should only be used when it isn't clear if the source supports what is in the article. Afootpluto (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is no need to repeat a well thought out statement. Support as to Springee's comment. -72bikers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

• As no clear suggestion has been made as to what or where.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• I object to removing quotes from cites in general in this article. In specific cases I might support it, but no specific suggestion has been made here. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Are these the "specific reasons" or the "as to what or where" for removing quotes?[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12].

Extended content

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) 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) Fully agreed. I've removed the quotes 72bikers added. Waleswatcher (talk) No I excluded it based upon the fact we do not discus the other side of that debate... Slatersteven (talk) 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) 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) ..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) 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 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) 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) 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) 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)

To date the reasons you both have given to remove quotes from RS's by accredited experts on the article subject matter. -72bikers (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not need walls of quotes for you to make your point, especially when they are (to a degree) strawmaning. I have not said I object to the removal of quotes (just that I want to have a discussion about what is removed), so proving I have said what I have said above proves nothing about what we are discusing now in this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This has everything to do with what is being discussed here. You and WW have both removed quotes from the article for the reasons listed here. Both of yours direct statements "As no clear suggestion has been made as to what or where." "In specific cases I might support it, but no specific suggestion has been made her".

• "...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. this quote is being proposed for inclusion into the article. So what are your views? -72bikers (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So we both removed quotes, so what? I have not said I object to the removal of any more quotes, just that I will not give a blanket agreement for removal of content. Before I agree for something to be removed I want to know what I am agreeing to being removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My views are this is not about including quotes but removing them. Can we please stay on topic?Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clearly on topic, you both are voting to not remove quotes yet you both have clearly recently removed quotes from the article. I would also point out both of your reasons are not supported by any policy. Your statement "As no clear suggestion has been made as to what or where." I am presenting the clear suggestion as to what or where you have asked. Do you support the removal of this quote content from the use in crime and mass shootings section?

• "...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.”

Also please do not comment in the middle of my comments. Not sure if you made a mistake or was intended but this is not done. -72bikers (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

72bikers, please learn the following: How to indent and format your comments properly (the "show preview" button helps). Not to post walls of text on talk pages. Once you master those two, you'll have an easier time constructively collaborating with other editors. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Waleswatcher will you reply to issues raised? Your vote stated "I object to removing quotes from cites in general in this article. In specific cases I might support it, but no specific suggestion has been made here." You clearly recently removed a quote from a cite in the article as seen below[13]. Is this the "specific cases" you speak of? Content that simple elaborates more on who the experts are and slightly expands on the copycat view. You only stated you had previously stated your reason for removal "I've explained in detail at least three times." All I see is this "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)" And your support of "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)" You are clearly stating no opposing view may be included into the article unless substantial content from your views are included. What policy or guideline supports this? I already explained that several times. Waleswatcher (talk) No you failed to explain why, and not for the first time here, you failed to follow BRD and instead went for BR edit war. Springee (talk) 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) 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) 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) it's just some speculation about why mass shooters might pick AR-15s, while not even mentioning the obvious reason (that you can buy them at the mall, unlike AK-47s, and they are much more powerful than handguns or shotguns, and much better at killing many people than most other rifles). Waleswatcher (talk) Comments like these show a lack of even a basic understanding of this article content. Perhaps if you could master this, you'll have an easier time constructively collaborating with other editors. Along with (I already explained ) what appears to be a way of being dismissive. Perhaps reply to other editors would be helpful. Also a habit of misunderstanding format. Since you raised this subject I will look at the constructive criticism raised and perhaps you would do the same. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I did not reply to the middle of your comment, you either made separate comments , either that or read wp:indent You have been told multiple times your inability to indent makes knowing who you are replying to, or when your content ends, difficult. Which added to your walls of text makes discussion with you difficult and hard to follow. The above is a prefect example. Now I have explained why I am voting oppose you, you, have not provided a valid reason for me to change that vote (and no asking if i support the removal of a quote that was removed weeks ago does not count, and is ...well I will leave it at that.). I am going to end with this, until you learn to indent properly and stop pasting walls of quotes I will oppose any addition or subtraction made by you on the grounds I have no idea what you are suggesting. I am not going to do your work for you, learn to communicate in a clear and concise way that does not cause confusion (and I have to assume at this point this is all very deliberate).Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose any addition or removal of quotes until I know what we are disusing and who the hell is being replied to. I have said this before and this is my last word. I will also oppose any suggestion accompanied by capitalization or bolding, I can read it does not need emphasis. If you are going to be discourteous I am going to assume whatever you say is equally valueless, valid points stand on their own merits.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven You were specifically asked about this quote being removed and denied from the article, content that simple elaborates more on who the experts are and slightly expands on the copycat view. (...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.”) Why do you oppose not removing quotes that simply repeat each other and repeat the article content, but support the removal of quotes actually helpful to the readers? -72bikers (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removing quotes. In this case it is helpful to include the specific quote that supports the content without combing through the source. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave I will ask you the same question as the other two opposing editors who fail to discuss there views when asked questions. It would appear they are unable to provide legitimate reasons for there views.

You are in support of keeping the quotes in the 61 citation saying "In this case it is helpful to include the specific quote that supports the content". Those 3 quotes (one very extended) provide nothing, all they do is simply repeat each other and repeat the article content "weapon of choice for mass shooters". All this does is create redundant content. It also reads as more overkill and bombardment "an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject". How is this legitimately helpful?

All the while a cite quote that actually helps the readers "...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.” by providing the experts credentials and to briefly expand on the copycat view. This also provides the readers with context and understanding of weapon choice.

This is removed and denied from the article but redundancies are kept. -72bikers (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

@72bikers: please revert your refactoring of other users' comments, fix your indenting, and review WP:BLUDGEON. VQuakr (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Please note 72 bikers has moved one of my comments so it appears I was replying to a post I did not reply to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC) SS I did not touch your statement I simply restored my response to WW that you incorrectly disrupted. Your assessment is incorrect and you placed a statement in between WW addressing me and my reply to him. Perhaps you should go back to talk page guidelines and read up on correct talk page actions and stop falsely accusing other of wrong doing and being discourteous based on your misunderstandings. I believe I have asked you to not post on my talk page which you have now done. Your warnings are not legitimate based on your misunderstandings, this is exactly why you were politely asked to not post there based on you inability to discern legit reasons. -72bikers (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I did not, I posted it after the reply that was indented as a reply. If your reply below my response was meant as a reply to the post by WW above it you incorrectly indented it in a way that leads to confusion (which more then one user has told you is an issue more then once, over more then a month). Now I am asking you (and telling you) one last time. I am not going to try and second guess who you are replying to. If you do not correctly indent your comments I will assume they are correctly indented and post accordingly. So either learn to indent replies correctly or stop moving users comments. The next time you do this I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC) You are mistaken my reply to WW [14]. Your comment clearly posted inbetween WW comment to me and my reply to him [15] Ironically stating you did not do something similar as you did here previously "I did not reply to the middle of your comment". Perhaps some advice might be helpful, look for signatures for where one editor starts and stops. On another note, if you perceive any wrongdoing, please do take it to a noticeboard and have it addressed that should not be allowed to persist. -72bikers (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC) No, your comment was not indented as a reply to WW (you have been told this and pointed to the correct MOS, more then once). Signatures do not tell me who it was a reply to, but who it was a response from. I have said what I will do should this happen again, I am giving you a fair warning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC) This is all off topic and seems like you are more interested in this than actually having a discussion of article content. Not sure how you do not know that your opinions are not policies that can be violated, with your warnings? The practice of indenting is a guideline to follow "Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you "can" (not must) place your response directly below it. Use a colon (:) to indent your message to create a threaded message." This is not a policy of which there would be any violation. One could argue repeated misspellings and incouhernt statement are more of a hindrance to communication than simply forgetting a colon. My comment started "Waleswatcher will you reply to issues raised?" right after his statment directed to me "Once you master those two, you'll have an easier time constructively collaborating with other editors. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk)". To imply you did not understand I find questionable. I again will point out to you I did not touch your statement, I simply moved my comments back to were they were and left your statement untouched. -72bikers (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

• I suggested above that it might be an idea to consider the question of quotes, since they've repeatedly come up as a roadblock to editing the article. They generally aren't needed, and it's easier to enforce a policy of "no quotes" or "always quotes" than arguing the merits of each individual quote. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment We should remove the citation overkill (consensus favors), then move on to quotes. It makes no sense to debate quotes that potentially will not even be in the article. -72bikers (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment With the consensus 5 to 0 after a couple days I reduced the citations. All left now to discuss is the quotes issues. -72bikers (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary

I'm going to try to close this out. I think we have agreement regarding reducing the number of sources in citation 61. As for embedded quotes we don't have consensus to remove them en-mass and they should be address on a case by case basis.

I would like to propose removing the quotes in citation 61. Our intent was to reduce the bulk of text that shows up when people hover over the link. I think this would help. Springee (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that none of the individual quotes are significantly longer then any of the other quotes we have. The issue now is not length of quotes, but three cites being lumped together. It would not be as bad if they were seperated out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Springee I agree with your assessment.Slatersteven were exactly is the logic in keeping 3 quotes (one very extended) that simply just repeats each other and just repeats the article content "weapon of choice for mass shooters". All this does is create redundant content. It also reads as more overkill and bombardment. And now you would also attempt to expand and restore the clutter that was removed. All the while not providing any logical explanation of these actions. -72bikers (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Where did I say I wanted anything restored? The only user asking here to add anything is you. And none of this address what I said, that none of these quotes seem significantly longer then any of the other quotes we have in the same section. The only reason it takes up so much space is that they are all jumbled in one cite.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your perception would appear to be based on misunderstanding, perhaps if you take a step back (no one thinks clearly when angered) you would be able to follow along. -72bikers (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"And now you would also attempt to expand and restore the clutter that was removed", how did I misunderstand that as saying that I am trying to restore removed content?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 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.

[16] 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.

[17] 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.

[18]Date content was accepted into the article 13:42, July 3, 2018‎ No wound content. [19]Date content change by admin Drimies after SS repeatedly altered it 21:04, July 3, 2018 [20]Date quotes first included in article 12:03, July 6, 2018 [21] Date quotes first removed 12:06, July 6, 2018

[22] 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.

[23] 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 [24], [25] 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[26] 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)

Notice - Archiving

I've reduced archiving time to 14 days: threads that have not received a response in two weeks will be archived. I've also archived the first 4 threads on the page as either closed, dead, or no action required. The bot has also archived two other dead threads. The talk page is now shorter than 70k bytes (instead of 200k). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your question

Waleswatcher - I tried doing this - minus the "leading trauma surgeon and retired captain" bit - but it creates its own problem. Dr. Rhee isn't the source for the quotes in the first half of the sentence, the NRA and the Brady Campaign (I think that's who the second quote is attributed to in the article) are. If he was, I'd have just put Dr. Rhee in at the start of the sentence without asking. I'd avoid putting any more quotes in citations since its causing problems elsewhere, and will probably cause problems here. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the last thing we need is more quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, your solution looks good to me. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a solution. Sure it attributes the third quote to the right person, but what you've written is synthesis. Because it is "customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate" and "can basically shoot as quickly as you can pull the trigger", Trauma surgeon Dr. Peter Rhee regards the AR-15 as "a perfect killing machine". Ok, simple: because of x, Rhee says y. Makes sense. Except, Rhee didnt say x, nor is x the reason why Rhee says y. Rhee says y because Its tiny bullets ... travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside the flesh – essentially inert space – which collapses back on itself, destroying inelastic tissue, including nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. Do you see the problem? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst sysnthy it is also what hunters are saying about it, its ability to fire accurately and rapidly. The only difference is the targets they are talking about. Thus I am not sure that particular claim really needs attribution, it is clear the view this weapon fires accurately and rapidly is not just used in a negative context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Each individual statement is fine. However, the statements had been fused (synthesis of multiple sources) and attributed to a person to form a conclusion (because x, therefore y) which is not supported by either source (and particularly not by the cited individual). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the opinion of the trauma surgeon. The doctor isn't a subject matter expert in firearms nor an otherwise noted source of opinions. The quote is provocative without substance which makes is questionable per NPOV. As is often pointed out, NPOV doesn't mean we can't use biased sources but it does mean we as authors must strive to present information in a neutral fashion. Putting a provocative opinion quote from a non-notable source into the article is not in line with NPOV. Springee (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Did we not go over all this not too long ago? Anyone else get a sense of déjà vu? -72bikers (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks a lot like the discussion we had here [[27]] Springee (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the non-notable opinion of Peter M. Rhee. The guy who operated on Gabby Giffords and attended to the other shooting victims of the 2011 Tucson mass shooting,[28] who attended a state of the union address with the then first lady, and who visited the white house... is a non-notable opinion? It's a POV opinion for sure, but it's not non-notable. The result of the wound effects RfC was that the proposed text gave very undue weight to a single non-MEDRS source. There was also mention of NPOV. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

An d I have found this [[29]] "Andrew Somerset, an expert on American gun culture, previously told Global News that these features, along with the significant damage it can inflict, also make the AR-15 popular with violent criminals" (note an "expert"), these listed above his comment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues

The recent spate of editing in the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section has introduced some problems:

• It has been suggested this is because the AR-15 being of modular construction enables it to be adaptable and customizable. - What has been suggested? This sentence doesn't make a point, and the citation that WW introduced has been removed.
• Its base 22 caliber being small and direct gas impingement operating system support accuracy but at the cost of reliability because of operating system. As well as the fact that every trigger pull semi-auto weapons fire one round. This has (however) been disputed as AR-15s are not the only rifles with these characteristics - These two sentences are now also uncited.

Regards, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well the passage now now been rewitren to explain what point was being made, and the passage was cited. And as you said it was cited but the cote had been removed with no explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the citation. Also, you are correct, the old revision said "specific merits". Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added some more context, it was referring to the paragraph above, now it makes it more clear.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically it is still cited, the USA today cite (65) contains the material in question.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I found it. For the record: The NRA said "the AR-15 has soared in popularity" because it's "customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate." It is also versatile and can be used for "sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations," the NRA said, adding the ability to "personalize" so many of the rifle's components "is one of the things that makes it so unique. The "what has been suggested" is its popularity. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is also a quote from the Brady campaign, and the expert opinions are direct rebuttals of the claims. It is cleat form context they are rebutting the idea that these weapons are used for their technical characteristics. Of course much depends on whether or not the The Brady Campaign tare saying popularity with mass shooters or the general public. And (as I say above) the con text of all the articles points to the former. They are about why the guns are so frequently used.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The USA today article is talking about both popularity with the general public and with mass shooters. That much is clear from The National Rifle Association has called the AR-15 — the semi-automatic, civilian version of the military’s M-16 — the "most popular rifle in America" and estimates Americans own more than 8 million of them. There are not 8 million mass shooters in the U.S. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

True but the experts are clearly responding to something, and it comes after the Brady campaign give their opinion. I suspect what we have here are the answers but not the questions. But I agree that we cannot tell what anyone was responding to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

How do your theories make any sense? It has become abundantly clear your theory of responding to something has been your repeated attempts to include the wound content or something similar (you have openly stated this). You have not established any consensus that would agree with your opinion. What they are responding to is the reporter asking them there views on mass murder. They are not responding to some claim you find represents some issue that needs to be included. Hazon does not make any indication he is responding to what the Brady campaign says, there is no evidence that supports your opinion.

"It has been suggested that one reason for its use in mass shootings is the fact it can take high capacity magazines, but it has been said that other guns on the market also have this feature.[65] Who says this? The Brady Campaign. This is just an opinion of an advocacy group. They are not recognized as experts on firearms nor mass murder. There is no noteworthiness to this statement.

"It has also been suggested that whilst there may be similar guns on the market the ar-15 is more "user-friendly" as well as being more affordable."|66 There is no noteworthiness to this statement, it is also incorrect, AK's can be found for similar prices to the AR. You also seem to be trying to use it as a reason of choice in a mass shooting and the source does not imply that. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Our standard is notable opinions, it is clear they are noted, someone noted them. It is an RS, we say what RS say. Now if you can find a source that disputes this claim, go ahead and use it. The fact is that there are many opinions as to why these guns are chosen for use in this kind of attack, and we do not reject notable opinions just because they have not been called (by newspapers, the same ones who considered the Brady campaigns opinions notable) experts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely you jest. You would try to claim "It is an RS, we say what RS say." Really? I suppose that only applies to something you find favorable. Because I can show you numerous statements by you contradicting this. Shall I show you? -72bikers (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead but be warned, misrepresenting what users say is a policy violation. Be warned.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SS your comment "It is an RS, we say what RS say" seems to contradict "no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk) 20 July 2018" "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" just two of many. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You do understand what notable means? Just because a source published something does not make every statement in the source notable or relevant (policy). Because again I can show you your own statements that would contradict what you now claim. -72bikers (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Showing your own words contradicting you is no policy violations. Please do not make a false statement in what looks like an attempt to scare. Just admit you are wrong. -72bikers (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Except I do not contradict myself, one is an RS issue the other is a balance issue (as you can tell if you read the full quote) [[30]]. I never said it was not notebale or relevant I said "I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts".",. I never say you cannot use them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You would also appear to be going back to your statements that the recognized experts are not experts and would also appear to now be saying the Brady Campaign are experts on guns and mass murder. I would point out this is a weak case with no support. If this is the base of your argument it would appear this view does not hold water . -72bikers (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No I said the Brady campaign were notable, not that they were experts. Nor do I go back on "statements that the recognized experts are not experts" I never said they were not ex-pets I said there is no standard by which to judge such a claim, thus it is just a claim made by the media.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also point out you were quick to accept "a perfect killing machine" stating lethality but choose to deny just the mention of the word lethality, not saying something was overly lethal nor stating it lacked lethality. A clear case of double standards that cannot be easily dismissed . -72bikers (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected the source does imply shooters choosing because of low price. But the AK can be found for similar prices as the AR (so claim false). -72bikers (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Like most things that are popular, sources attribute its popularity to a number of factors. Although there may be cheaper semi-automatic rifles on the market, it is the combination of accuracy, reliability, customizability, etc. at a reasonable price that makes it popular. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So do you have a source saying this, at this time this is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy on inclusion WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the new."

WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement." -72bikers (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dwave Your explanation does not hold water for a number of reasons. The AR is not more reliable than the AK this is common knowledge. Are you even aware of what the forward assist is for on an AR. Customizability is not a factor of selecting either the majority just used stock AR's and as experts stated "They believe mass shooters generally don't know much about guns."

I am still waiting for your response above "you are in support of keeping the quotes in the 61 citation saying "In this case it is helpful to include the specific quote that supports the content". Those 3 quotes (one very extended) provide nothing, all they do is simply repeat each other and repeat the article content "weapon of choice for mass shooters". All this does is create redundant content. It also reads as more overkill and bombardment "an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject". How is this legitimately helpful?" -72bikers (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SS "no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk) 20 July 2018 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"

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Aug 20th edits

I've restored material removed here [[31]]. The inclusion of the material as restored reflects a consensus that has been in place for over a month and was achieved after considerable debate. The material was removed without talk page discussion. It has now been restored. Springee (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

What is in the article was placed there by Admin Drmies [32] July 3, and had a talk page consensus. -72bikers (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OR

Will eds please read wp:or, if the source does not explicitly say it neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to better explain why you feel the material was OR. That also applies to failed verification tag. The MJ data is raw data but it also supports the statements in the second source thus I don't see the concern. The third source again says that handguns are the primary weapons in mass shootings so it also supports the wiki article claim. Springee (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It hinges on the fact that there is (in the sources I taged) no mention of what they define as a mass shooting as far as I can tell (n fact as far as I can tell they do not have anything to say about mass shootings). Thus whether or not they give any exact numbers is open to how the reader defines mass shooting (and there is no clear cut definition [[33]]). Thus this is OR, it is 72bikers interpretation of what constitutes as mass shooting. As to the third source, it is talking about how prevalent mass shootings are, I can find nothing that talks about the choice of guns of mass shooters (though I can find quote about mass murderers, which is not quote the same thing not all mass murderers are mass shooters)) a quote would be nice if I am missing it. Thus is fails verification.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point regarding the OR. I know many sources have cited the MJ data set when making claims but perhaps we shouldn't cite it unless one of the reference sources cites it. The 3rd source seems a very good fit to me. Consider the following passage from the 3rd source:

And indeed, most mass murderers don't use assault weapons. They use – they use semi-automatic handguns. That's the most common weapon, but not what would be declared an assault weapon and banned.

This is a claim by the expert named in our Wikipedia article. Springee (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And as I pointed out it says mass murderers, not mass shooters, which then takes us back to what is a mass shooting. I would point out we already say that hand guns are the most common weapon in crime, and that is where any addition material should go related to this, the first line. But inclusion of this needs major rewrite as only an outdated survey supports the text as written.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are stretching that one. The context of the third article is very clear since it is talking about mass shootings. Remember these are quotes from a live interview, not written statements. It would be stretch to assume when he says "mass murders" in the interview he changed from the context of "mass shootings" to some context that includes say serial killers. I won't argue that the text can use cleaning but the claim that handguns are the primary weapon used in mass shootings is supported by the third reference. Springee (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is looking like if we say this we have to have the other side (which not shown) scenario and just rhetorical nonsense. -72bikers (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think kit is a stretch, I think given the context (there is no clear cut definition of mass shooting) he is saying exactly what he means, it is clear he both stumbles over and chooses his words. He was asked "Did that have any effect one way or the other on these shootings?" His response was not to say "no" it was to say "not exactly". I also note he says "assault weapons", not A-15s or even Semi-auto rifles. So even here it does not support the text, this article is not about Assault weapons.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Because he says "handgun" vs "Assault Weapon" we can reasonably infer that all AR-15's would be counted in the AW bucket and not the handgun bucket. Your objection here is very weak. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct there is no clear cut definition but by that logic (taken to an unreasonable extreme) we can drop the whole section from the article since we don't know what definition of mass shooting was used in each article we've quoted. An expert (Fox) says handguns are the primary weapon of mass shooters. That is by all reasonable measure sufficient for the claim made in the article unless we have a second source that challenges that claim. We don't. Springee (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No What we do is reflect accurately what RS actually say. That is why we need to be very accurate, because there is no clear cut definition. Fox does not say mass shooters, he says mass murderers, he does not say AR-15 he says assault weapons. This (even if we include this source) that section would need a total rewrite (and expanding to a paragraph) to accurately reflect what the sources are actually saying (which we must do given the lack of clarity).Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven your changes to the verified RS content has not been shown to have any legitimate reason or explanation. With your changes I assume your are attesting to the validity of the percentages of weapons used.

A RS said that handguns are the most common mass shooting weapon. The context of mass shooting vs mass murder with non-firearms was very clear since the expert said A vs B and both A and B are in the family guns. At this point you haven't supported the tag you added. Springee (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

To avoid a long back and fourth what about changing the reference to this one [[34]]. Same expert. Makes it clear we are talking about mass shootings, not mass murders. Springee (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So I take it then we can also use this as a source for the AR-15 being an assault rifle? "Despite their unparalleled firepower, most mass murderers actually do not use assault rifles, but instead rely on more easily transported and concealed semi-automatic handguns" oh and he does use mass murderer this time, not in an interview but a carefully thought out written piece. So yes he means exactly what he says. So we need to make sure we actually reflect what he clearly IS saying.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Again you are being illogical. The message is clear even if he said "assault rifle" (as many in the press say). In context it is still clear "mass murder" is referring to the perpetrator of a mass shooting. Let's drop the unreasonable arguments. Springee (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that he is in fact being vague and imprecise (and there is no if about him saying assault rifle, I quoted it). That is my point, what he is saying is not clear cut an unequivocal (and I also...not new issue), it is in fact a model of the opposite, statments that can have a number of meanings.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The intent is clear. The expert talking about the outcry associated with mass shootings. It is very reasonable to infer that "mass murder" and "mass murderer" in this context refers to the mass shooting and the perpetrator of the mass shooting. The criminologist says that handguns vs assault weapons (sometimes saying assault rifles) are the primary gun type used. Since AR-15's would be seen as not handguns and in the media a type of assault weapon the meaning is clear and requires no twisting of sources or logic. I've removed the verification tag. I would suggest we figure out how to handle the citation marked with an OR tag. Springee (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said I disagree it is clear, far from it it look deliberately obscure, so I have given an attribution and a reflection of what he said, I think I will make it a direct quote.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

CNN interview does support the content FOX: "And indeed, most mass murderers don't use assault weapons. They use – they use semi-automatic handguns. That's the most common weapon, but not what would be declared an assault weapon and banned." (title= "Criminology Professor to CNN's Tapper: Mass Shootings Aren't an 'Epidemic'") So your is frivolous and not correct. Please show on what grounds support your view.

The book from 2016 listed as well as the study both mention the Mother Jones "Mass Shooting Database" the chart makes no "conclusions". It simply provides a listing of mass shootings and the weapons used. These are simply just facts and it is simply provided to show its most recent update 2018 has not changed the percentages. (title= US Mass Shootings, 1982-2018: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation) So your "Source is a list, it is OR to draw these conclusions (it does not even define mass shooting") is frivolous and not correct. Please show on what grounds support your view.

Please either provide legitimate reasons or revert your changes. -72bikers (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have above.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Springee I have the study that quotes the Mother Jones chart, study page 136 [35] there is also more sources using this chart and in support of the content. I did not want to or thought needed to over cite it, But I have done my research on this matter.-72bikers (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this not already in an RS?, it is not a new sourceSlatersteven (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I also note another 2014 source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest directly quoting the studies that use the data rather than the data. Springee (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven on what grounds are you making the claim OR?72bikers (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On the grounds it does not list all of the weapons used in all of the shootings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven How are you interpreting that, for every one of the shootings listed, it shows type of weapon and weapon details. Were in the chart are "you" seeing this? -72bikers (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On things like case 5 which says Semi auto rifle, but dose snot specify type.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok lets go through it, case 5 I counted to the rifle use percentage. It states semi-automatic rifle so similar to the AR it only does not state the caliber. Next? -72bikers (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven the chart defines 4 weapons types semi-automatic handguns, rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. The same as the study. -72bikers (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven there are tools provided that also allow the ability to filter the chart for specific stats, as well a list and link for the sources of every shooting so there is no guessing nor OR.-72bikers (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's hence trying to draw definite number form this sources is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also you removed a direct quote that whose inclusion removes any issues why, why not provide his actual words?Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

To further support the statistics, "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research"[36]. From Feb. 24, 1984 to Feb. 14, 2018 in the last 35 years USA Today states that only 14 mass shootings have specifically used a AR-15.

As shown the mother jones chart from 1982 to 2018 include AK's as well as other similar semi-auto's in there list of rifles used. They only use 4 groups, rifles, semi-auto handguns, revolvers, and shotguns. As I pointed out you can filter the list to see specific uses as well as every mass shooting in the chart shows the source that can be checked.

But as you point out "Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's" I will address your concern to resolve this issue. -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why was not just providing his direct quote not doing this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I can not understand your broken English. -72bikers (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the last edit of the article you made I would not criticize others standards of English, unless you are saying it was a deliberate edit. My adding of his quoted (which you undid) words addressed my concerns. So I ask again, why not just include his quote about mass murderer and assault weapons? How does this not address my concearns?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

If that is your only concern I will restore with your suggestion. -72bikers (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Its not (as you are fully aware). I have said it needs a rewrite, and until I see what is being suggested (here, not as an edit to the article) I cannot agree to any edit (especially given the mess of your last attempt).Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC) And indeed your latest edit repeats those bizarre errors, thus it is clear it was indeed not a mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Now (72 bikers) do you want to suggest a properly written compromise here, you need consensus for any edits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the material in general should be in the article. If we are going to put so much emphasis on "weapon of choice" then we should also note the statistics that do/don't support that claim. That isn't to say the material as added was acceptable but the sourcing seems fine in general. We just need to refine the language. Springee (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

We already do make much the same point in the first line. As I said I want to see any suggested edits here (given the latest shenanigans) before anything more is added to that section.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you have final say on what is and what is not included to the article? -72bikers (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't but I will say that the edit you inserted was so illegible that I wasn't certain what you were trying to say at all. Which is why I reverted it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow if that does not look like a personal attack I don't know what does. 72bikers (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223 - the material you added is so badly written as to be nearly incomprehensible (heard of commas?). It's also redundant/in the wrong place - the section already states at the very beginning that most shootings are with handguns. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Assault rifle

Professor Fox (an accredited and recognizes expert, according to some) has started that the AR-15 is an assault riffle, is there any valid reason to to go with his claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No. This point has been beaten to death and you are distorting a source to try to make this claim. Springee (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

NO I am not unless you are saying that his statement about assault rifles does not include AR-15's. If it does then he is saying they are assault rifles. Thus (if his opinion) is worthy of inclusion why not over this issue as well? Why now the rejection of "expert" opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Armalite AR-15 is indeed an assault rifle. That's already stated in the article. That said, nowhere in this article does James Alan Fox refer to the AR-15, or any other firearm, by name as an assault rifle. All he says is that mass murders are not generally committed with assault rifles: Despite their unparalleled firepower, most mass murderers actually do not use assault rifles, but instead rely on more easily transported and concealed semi-automatic handguns. This is not the same thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I hope no one else makes that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have to twist sources to get that statement to mean the AR-15 is an assault rifle. Springee (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the one saying the source is talking about the AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not use that article to support the claim that the civilian version of the AR-15 is an assault rifle. Though it does seem a reasonable statement about handguns which might be useful in the Mass shootings in the United States article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

None of my 3 sources listed call a AR a assault rifle. In fact the book I use as a reference states "Arguably the most scrutinized type of firearm during this commentary is the assault rifle, what is commonly, and incorrectly, referred to by politicians, pundits, and the general public as an "AR" "A true assault rifle is a fully automatic, thereby continuing to shoot bullets as long as the trigger is engaged"

That is the only mention by Fox to state that I have seen in his many studies and many interviews or sources that reference his studies. It was also the reason I choose not to use it. -72bikers (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W's edit

This edit looks like a violation of the remedies on this page (you cannot restore material that has been challenged by reversion without first acheiving talk page consensus). Waleswatcher (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: Get real. The material wasn't "challenged", it was removed with a misleading edit summary by an editor who to my knowledge has never edited the article before, and thus treated as test edit/blanking/vandalism (take your pick). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)