Talk:AR-15–style rifle

Putting crime section after intro

@Waleswatcher: has changed the section order of the article to put the crime section just after the intro. This is a change that doesn't follow the layout of many/most articles that I'm aware of. Per WP:ONUS this change now needs a discussion to stay. Absent consensus for the change it should be reverted. Springee (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean when you write "...doesn't follow the layout of many/most articles that I'm aware of"? Speaking for myself, I'm aware of many wiki articles with all sorts of layouts. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Look, you make the change, you get reverted, you seek consensus. That's how this works. I'm going to put it back where it was, since that seems to make the most sense to me. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I thought that Waleswatcher gave a good explanation, namely: "Use in crime and mass shootings is obviously more important than the modularity of the rifle, as is born out by the fact that one is discussed in the lede and the other not." --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The first problem is simply procedural. The edit was rejected so the next step is come here and get consensus for the change. I disagree with the edit because, as is the case with many such topic, we describe what it is first then talk about impacts and teh like. It becomes a basically chronological order. What is it, where did it come from, how does it work, then how was it used. If the order of the article is going to change lets get a few more eyes on it to discuss things first. BTW, I wouldn't assume that the lead is correct. Looking at it I think the lead could use some real work. Springee (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think giving an actual description of what the term means what the guns are is most important. The section ordering could probably be improved, but I'd say that terminology, modularity, and comparison to military versions should be higher up than usage in crime and mass shootings, since they provide key facts about what the guns are and how they work, which I think is more fundamental than how they are used. Not sure about the other sections. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur criminal use should follow a description of the rifle's features. The fact that these rifles have been used is less important than the reasons they have been used. I would argue that certain features make AR-15 style rifles more effective than some other firearms, but the current focus on coverage in reliable sources indicates publicity may be a more significant reason. In that case, I suggest Wikipedia should carefully consider whether we want to join the sources which may encourage potential mass shooters to select these rifles. We can easily revise the lead section as appropriate to justify revised sequencing of the remainder of the article. Thewellman (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The argument that the lede determines importance and relevance here doesn't make sense logically as this is apparently a piece of work that is under revue in general. Rather, logic would dictate that we then need to assume that the lede requires correction based upon the results of these most recent discussions. As for the importance of modularity, this is a literal feature of the design itself, as such it is significantly more relevant to the rifle itself than events which fall outside of the intended use of the design Syr74 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the lede not just a little over the top with all the references to crimes and legality? I believe there is certainly not this much attention given on this content in any books or article of black rifles. This is already covered in the article under its own heading. And I fail to see were that much weight needs to be placed on that content. This content does also have many of its own articles devoted to it. Should it not all just be merely in a see also or perhaps in certain circumstances main article at such and such. Would that not certainly be a compromise. Saying " I'm aware of many wiki articles with all sorts of layouts" is certainly not a defense of the current lede. -72bikers (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the references to crime and legality are fine the way they are. But maybe it would make sense to add slightly more material describing the basic function of the rifle, if you're concerned about balance of material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

To anyone who knows anything about firearms, modularity is the single best reason for this type of gun success. -72bikers (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wafflehouse shooting

@Waleswatcher:, at this point it may be too soon to include that shooting in the article. I would suggest getting some consensus for inclusion (see previous discussions of similar cases). Currently I would oppose inclusion as not notable in context of the article topic. Springee (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Springee that this event is of trivial significance to the subject of this article. Thewellman (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We should have have some kind of way of determining which shootings are significant enough to bring up, and describe them as representative of many more that have to go unmentioned. Unfortunately, if we included every mass shooting mentioned in a newspaper where the shooter used an AR-15, the entire article would be shootings and we might as well rename it to "list of mass shootings where the killer used an AR-15 style rifle". I think secondary sources, like those that describe the history of AR-15s being used in mass shootings that we already have in the article, would be helpful guidance for determining signifigance, instead of just going by news reports of individual events. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is beneficial for the readers to introduce this crime content in the article every time a crime is committed. This heading is now already bigger than or as large as most of the other headings in the article, this in my mind looks like undo weight being placed on this content. To blame a inanimate object instead of addressing the real problem of mental health, as especially this buck-naked deranged crazy has shown and not anything about it in the Mental disorder article, were it clearly belongs. Would it not be better to just have a sentence or two then a see also or main article link to the mass shootings article.72bikers (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Mental health is certainly an important and relevant issue, especially for this particular shooting. The fact that said crazy people can easily procure AR-15 rifles and kill many people with them is what makes this event particularly pertinent for an article on that specific type of weapon. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: The "Use in crime and mass shootings" section is currently 1077 characters. It is the shortest prose-style section in the article. If you think this should be added to Mental disorders then you should go ahead and add it there. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would it be "too soon"? It's not as though there is any debate about the facts. As for significance, four people were murdered (and only that few because someone managed to take the gun away) and the event was reported across the world as front-page news. There are certainly hundreds and maybe even thousands of secondary sources. That is way past the threshold of notability per wiki standards. Moreover it was prominently reported in most or all of those reports that the gun was an AR-15 or AR-15 style rifle, which makes it plainly significant for this article (for the same reason the other mass shootings are). Waleswatcher (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Were does it end, you can not include every crime commited in this article, as I have mentioned undo weight being placed on this content. And as far as numbers it is just a aturday night in Chicago. Even the smaller town I live in we have had four people found dead in a house killed all at one time and even more instances like this.72bikers (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So you admit this content should be placed in the Mental disorders article but you fail to have the interest to put it there. Really? -72bikers (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as size you are just splitting hairs, as visually it looks bigger or as large as most of the other headings. -72bikers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I realize we have plenty of reliable sources stating that the shooter used an AR-15, and that it was a newsworthy event. But how many newsworthy events have occurred where the shooter used an AR-15? I bet if you dug through news archives you'd find at dozens, perhaps hundreds of shootings of similar coverage over the past few decades where the shooter used an AR-15. It is unfortunately, a too common event in this world. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and it isn't an indiscriminate dump of information. I don't know if this Waffle House shooting was significant enough to include in this article, it's still in the headlines. Will anyone be talking about this a month from now? A year from now? Maybe we should wait to get some perspective. But even if this turns out to be an event of lasting significance, the larger problem still confronts us: we can't include all of the shootings where people were killed by an AR-15 that received this kind of coverage in this article. Also, 72bikers, whatever is going on with the Mental Disorders article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something. Nobody has to work on any article, and you can't order people to do so. Additionally, whether the weapon was "to blame" is equally irrelevant to the determination of what information belongs on this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: this addition [1] seems fine by me. In scope and not undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

...and as "in scope and not undue" as it is, even as brief as it is, will this be the way of things now? Every time there is a shooting involving an AR-15, is it going to be added to this list? Because that's what this is; a list. A repeat, actually, of the list that is already linked twice, in the the lead and in the very same section that all these shootings are being noted in. At some point, this list will outweigh the article (some may feel it already does). Is there a point where even the most ardent of supporters of this content see that this info should be presented another way? - ^theWOLFchild 01:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I largely agree with Wolf here. Where is the limit? The Project Firearms crime suggestion was well considered. We do need some sort of balance between mentioning every time a particular type of gun is used in a crime and the broader readability and encyclopedic value of the addition. The section in question is about the general controversy relating to the use of the AR-15 type rifles in mass shootings. We'll we have three good examples and the rest of the section can focus the boarder topic. That is how articles on the subject (AR-15s in mass shootings) seem to work. In general they do not simply list every example the reporter can find. We shouldn't either. Due weight of course is the basis we should be using here. Well, in context of the rifle does this shooting have any impact? Thus far no. As such it's reasonable to argue it has no weight what so ever. Also in this case no one is arguing that this crime was made particularly deadly because the shooter had an AR-15 vs say a 9mm pistol. Perhaps after a few weeks the narrative will change and this will become a story about the AR-15 the way Sandy Hook was. Currently it isn't. Springee (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I clearly demanded nothing, please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. And mental health is at the root of this kind of crime, so if you are to define the event by a weapon, why not the root of the issue.72bikers (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also your statement "whether the weapon was "to blame" is equally irrelevant to the determination of what information belongs on this article" this would contradict your reasons for inclusion as well as most of the other editors that state it is relevant. So you are saying just because this weapon was simple used in a crime and mentioned in the news it should be in this article even thought this event is well covered elsewhere on Wiki. -72bikers (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• The brief mention of the shooting isn't undue. It's useful to crosslink information like this, and it's common for firearms article to include an extensive Users section because this is often the aspect that receives the most coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Crosslinking doesn't make the material due or undue. The weight with respect to the topic does that. Why does this crime have weight in context of the AR-15 article? The articles I've seen are about the crime, not the AR-15 type rifle. A scan of headlines and articles don't put much emphasis on the AR-15 vs the mental state of the shooter. Springee (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee, the gun specifically was only briefly mentioned and his mental health by far received more coverage. -72bikers (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. I just google searched "Waffle house shooting" on google news. The first hit never mentions his mental health, and the part of the story that's about the shooting begins with this: "But Reinking’s father gave the weapons back to his son, who allegedly used one of them — an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle — to open fire at the Waffle House, killing four and wounding four before 29-year-old James Shaw Jr. wrestled the rifle out of his hands, police said." Waleswatcher (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of that article was talking about the suicide prevention steps the authorities were talking presumably due to his mental state. The AR-15 got passing mention at the very end of the article. This is exactly the sort of incidental mention that doesn't justify inclusion in an article about AR-15s. Springee (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Dlthewave: - "The brief mention of the shooting isn't undue." - wadr, you are missing the point here. How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article? There are going to be more AR-15 incidents in the news, do we just keep adding them indefinitely? Or at some point do we consider a new approach to handling this content, as I asked in the section below? - ^theWOLFchild 18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't find the length of the section concerning, as long as it reflects RS coverage. It's common practice to include long lists in firearms articles such as the Users section of Glock. If it begins to overwhelm the article, we can spin it off as a separate list similar to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737. –dlthewave ☎ 23:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but "list of users" and "list of mass shootings" are simply not comparable. As for a separate list for all these mass shootings and other criminal use incidents, that is something I suggested weeks ago. Perhaps the "list of mass shootings in the U.S." page should include the type/brand of firearm (s) used in each incident, then that article would only need to be listed once in the "See also" sections of any related firearms articles, which would put a lot of these concerns about undue and weight to rest along with all the ongoing disputes and debates surrounding the addition of this type of content. - ^theWOLFchild 00:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus is to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Yes, this means we're going to have to keep having these discussions, but that's a normal part of the consensus-building process. The consensus for this particular article is to include a paragraph-style crime/mass shooting section. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Regrettably that RfC was poorly formed and thus left no suggestions for how to view weight. Consensus is nice but previously editors complained that local consensus was dominated by "pro gun" editors who wanted to exclude all mention of crimes. If consensus was all that matters what was the issue with exclusion based on local consensus? What we really need is some sort of consensus that helps people understand how we should interpret the weight of mentions in articles. I feel that the project firearms suggestions were very good and made sense in context of Wikipedia policies, guidelines etc. Now the question is still open. Interestingly, the Toronto van crime hasn't been added to the Ryder or Chevy Express Van articles. This is why many editors feel there is a double standard with regards to guns. Springee (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - TWC, you ask How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article? But we are not here the debate the future state of the article; we are here to discuss the present state. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well... your dictates aside, there are those of us that are concerned about the "present" direction of the editing of some of these articles and the impact it will have on "future" content and balance. In some cases, that 'future' is imminent. (also, it would be nice if you could offer something helpful, at least once, if you are going to continue dogging my posts. this constant personal criticism is accomplishing nothing). - ^theWOLFchild 00:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be "how many". The question is why are they in the article in the first place? The three very high profile mass shootings make sense as examples in context of the section. Not to dismiss the victims in this case but the WH shooting is small in comparison and so far has had very limited impact. Remember that this is an article about a type of firearm, not about crime so the inclusions need to have weight in context of the article subject. This one doesn't. We should use the Churchill speech rule, mention things in blocks of three. That actually means we could trim some of the others. Either way, at this point there is simply no consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

These incidents are covered in the linked article; "Mass shootings in the United States", and with that, I'm still wondering why that page is linked twice in this article? Anyone? - ^theWOLFchild 02:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it's helpful for readers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate more and actually specifically explain why there is a need for a redundant link. This generally runs contrary to Wiki policies and only "if it significantly aids the reader". Also were is this consensus you speak of, I see many editors opposed to this content inclusion and there has been no compromise made. There are many articles that not once mention any gun at all [2] or when republished from the Associated Press "WAFFLE HOUSE SHOOTING Suspected shooter was troubled for years" [3] that not once mention any gun, it only talked about his mental state. The full article only had one trivial mention of the gun [4]. And many more that had only one or so trivial mentions, (proof the gun was his[5]), (one brief mention in a write-up [6]), (one trivial mention when disarmed in a large article[7]), (two trivial mention in a report of mental state[8]) -72bikers (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The manual of style page you're referring to says that generally a link should appear once, but if it's helpful for readers, a link can be repeated at the first occurrence after the lead. That's the situation we have here in the AR-15 style rifle article; "mass shootings in the United States" is linked once in the lead, and once near the bottom of the article. The MOS portion you've quoted regarding "only if it significantly aids the reader" is inapplicable, as that's in reference to stand-alone and embedded lists. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That's just splitting hairs. This content "mass shootings in the United States" is not what the article is about. This content is covered in many other articles on Wiki. But we are to believe that this link need to out weight the actual article content? You still have not addressed how it specifically helps the reader. Did they forget by the time they read to the bottom of the article? Can you show this occurrence in unrelated article. -72bikers (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with AzureCitizen, the repeat link is appropriate to include in both the lead and section. Readers often want to continue on to a more in-depth article after reading a section, and I personally find it useful to have the extra link in the same section as the related content. I'm not following the "out weigh the actual article content" concern as the link is in fact part of the article content and does not add any extra length or weight. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Q. How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article?

A. When the weight of the "brief mentions" section gets too heavy, just make a WP:summary style split to a sub-article on Use of AR-15 style rifles in crime and mass shootings, and then summarize the most important "brief mentions" here under a {{main article}} hatnote. This isn't rocket science. wbm1058 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL... You make it sound sooo easy. If only it were so. 1) I already suggested a split, ages ago. 2) the question still stands; at what point has the article been 'weighed down' enough to require a split? - ^theWOLFchild 04:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly what's there now isn't enough... you have to have more than a stub's worth to justify a split. wbm1058 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a given, but it is also possible to have less than "a stub's worth" of content place undue weight on an article. (hence some of the on-going debates on these pages). So, really, there is no quick'n'easy answer... But hopefully a solution will be found soon. - ^theWOLFchild 04:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the split, many articles start small and sadly I think the editors here will have more than enough content for inclusion, especially with the bar set so low. -72bikers (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I Still see no valid answers for the superfluous link. This article is not about mass killings, that information is just a side note (covered in many other articles).

Also by including any mention of these types of guns in any crime your side sees fit to (especially when the weapon used is just a side note and more focus is on mental health) and not compromising in any way, is not how consensus works. Regardless of how many time you state there is a consensus or that it is not undue weight does not make your claimes factual. -72bikers (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been convinced that it's fine to add this material by the argument that, if we do get to the point where there is a massive unwieldy list, it can be spun off into its own list article. As for right now, the section is still just a tiny part of the larger article. Even if the inclusion principles are unclear in the long run, it simply isn't a problem for the article as it is right now. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

New approach needed

• This is exactly what I predicted would happen back in February after the Stoneman shooting when there was a sudden push to have firearms articles include criminal use content. Disputes, disruption, and articles out of balance in violation of WP neutrality policies. We tried to establish a project-wide guideline, but instead had that huge train-wreck of an RfC that left each and every event to be decided by local consensus on every single related article. In other words, a waste of time, leading to more conflict, leading to more disruption, leading to more wasted time. And none of this is leading to any kind of improvement for this project. We need to develop a more effective and consistent method to handle this type of content. This constant bickering is getting us no where, and will likely end up in another sensationalized and disingenuous op-ed by some so called 'journalist'. jmho - ^theWOLFchild 21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think literally 5 hours after a discussion has started is a little early to throw up our hands and say "this constant bickering is getting us nowhere". So instead of discussing the discussion, perhaps we should stick to discussing the content of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Go right ahead, no one is stopping you from 'discussing' said content. But even if you can come to some kind of agreement here, it still won't have any affect on future disputes on this, or any other related article, regarding this type of content. We need a better guideline in place that is project-wide, or this will just go on and on... - ^theWOLFchild 22:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Then go ahead and make a project-wide policy. That doesn't need to be on this talk page. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, not a single word of that reply is in any way helpful. How about I see if anyone else has a response that is perhaps more collegial and on topic...? (that is a rhetorical question, there is no need for a response) Thank you and have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So after you wrongly claim I am telling people what to do "It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something" you go on to do juts that to Wolf. Really? -72bikers (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's ok, 72b, I'm getting used to it. Anyway, as I said, hopefully we can find a new approach to dealing with this content. I see another RfC has been started at NPOV, this time discussing weight. On that particular point, I look forward to Springee's reply there, as he has repeatedly posted some excellent comments about that very issue, though they have been somewhat ignored. Hopefully with his and some other's input, a solution can be found so that we can indeed move forward with a new approach. - ^theWOLFchild 05:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussions or the article edit history very closely... just watching this from a distance. I'm inclined to think that the rough consensus is for what we have... a short two-paragraph section listing several major mass-shootings. Those who feel this doesn't take coverage of mass shootings to a level of sufficient detail, and want more comprehensive coverage of lesser incidents that nevertheless received major coverage in the National media, should probably start a new article Use of AR-15 style rifles in crime and mass shootings that focused on this one topic. wbm1058 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That had already been suggested, several weeks ago (and more than once). With an article like that, all the "criminal use" sections could be removed and instead that page could be linked in the 'see also' sections. It would probably put an end to all the disputes and disruption and resolve any undue/weight issues. But so far it hasn't happened. - ^theWOLFchild 20:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That wouldn't be acceptable in my view, but I'd be OK with the section roughly as it is now (without the Waffle House shooting), with a link in the section to the Use of AR-15 style rifles in crime and mass shootings main article with more details. Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Classical_thermodynamics. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

all the "criminal use" sections could be removed and instead that page could be linked in the 'see also' sections ... No, no no, that would be a violation of WP:Summary style – the child article holding more detailed information on a subtopic should be summarized in the parent article, that's standard encyclopedic procedure. The goal shouldn't be to segregate content into separate compartments (orphans) that aren't interconnected. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes yes...? How can you "violate" something that is only a guideline, and one that expressly states that "exceptions may apply"...? No, we are not exclusively beholden to that. We need to find a way to deal with this content that will (hopefully) put these constant disputes and disruption to rest, and if we need to toss some guidelines right out the window to so, then so be it. This is past the point of ridiculous and it's not getting any better. - ^theWOLFchild 23:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Throwing out guidelines to suit your preference in a controversial edit or article is not the way to go. The guidelines are there precisely to help make decisions when there are controversies. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Either point out exactly where I wrote that we should throw out guidelines to "suit [my] personal preference" or I'll take it as your tacit admission that you have not one clue about what you're commenting on here. Please read a discussion before commenting on it.

That said, if adhering to a particular guideline, or even a policy, only serves to create or prolong any controversy, dispute and/or disruption on this project, then clearly WP:IAR should be considered, if not a review and rewrite of said policy or guideline. This of course would be an undertaking of the community, not just me on my own, so your accusation is clearly misplaced. - ^theWOLFchild 01:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Just above, you wrote: "We need to find a way to deal with this content that will (hopefully) put these constant disputes and disruption to rest, and if we need to toss some guidelines right out the window to so, then so be it." Again, the guidelines are there precisely to help make decisions when there are controversies. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I know what I wrote, and I know it didn't include anything about "my personal preferences", (so I guess you're backing off that?) I also wrote; if adhering to a particular guideline, or even a policy, only serves to create or prolong any controversy, dispute and/or disruption on this project, then clearly WP:IAR should be considered, if not a review and rewrite of said policy or guideline. (aka 'throwing out'). Despite all the guidelines we have in place, there have been protracted disputes and disruption involving numerous editors and multiple articles. Despite all the discussion, ad infinitum and RfCs, both large and small, somewhat effective and ineffective, and numerous guidelines being cited ad nauseum, the disputes continue. There is essentially two parties dug in on either side of a gap and we need to find a way to close that gap. - ^theWOLFchild 02:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOVN

Such discussion is happening at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Guns,_crime,_and_due_weight:_Rough_draft. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Gratuitous content

Discussion moved to Talk:Gun laws in the Czech Republic#Gratuitous content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't care to get into a lengthy discussion over the appropriateness of criminal use content in gun articles – I hear that some editors feel this content is gratuitous: unjustified or unnecessary; not called for. Just want to bring your attention to and get some feedback on another type of, in my opinion, gratuitous content. I tried to remove the photo at the top of the Gun laws in the Czech Republic article, but was reverted. Does this pic of a hot hottie packing heat in a gun shop somehow illustrate gun laws to a degree that merits knocking the chart of gun license holders and registered firearms in the Czech Republic over time lower on the page? Feel free to reply here or there. wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC) So there's a girl in the gun shop... big deal. Should the shop be empty? Would you be happier if it was a dude holding the gun? Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with AR-15s. Perhaps you should try that article's talk page for feedback, or maybe WT:GUNS. - theWOLFchild 00:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I'm really disappointed to see someone felt the need to collapse this brief comment, given the wall of text on this page, and that the relevance of this seems to have gone over people's heads. wbm1058 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC) There is one editor here in particular who feels the constant need to collapse other editor's posts that they don't agree with. They have been doing this for some time now, on multiple talk pages. FYI - theWOLFchild 03:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussion of the content of that article, not for discussion of some other article's content. Additionally, coming to this page to recruit editors to participate in an unrelated discussion somewhere else could be canvassing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Canvassing might be a stretch, it's not as if he pinged any specific editors. As you can see above (if you uncollapse the hidden content) I agreed that this wasn't really an appropriate place to post that comment. But Wbm1058 did mention potential relevance to this page and/or the topics being discussed here. Maybe he could clarify that for us? - theWOLFchild 21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC) You guys should lighten up. Who's she pointing the gun at? Is there a sales clerk behind that display case? What if we just inserted a picture of the Waffle House shooter posing half naked with his gun in a gun store instead? Would your attitude about that still be "(no) big deal"? If you think that photo helps to illustrate an article about gun laws, then if that's an AR-15 style rifle (I don't know whether it is or not) then that photo could help illustrate this article too? I'm just a bit bemused/incredulous about your indifference to photos like that while at the same time some get all bent out of shape over the mere mention of the term "mass shootings" in any article about guns. wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Uh, what? You are comparing an image of a fully-dressed woman holding a rifle in a gun shop (and she could be a sales clerk for all we know) to an image of a naked, psychotic mass-murderer on shooting spree? You really think that I, or anyone else here, would treat those two images the same? That's a ridiculous assertion to make. (And you're telling us to "lighten up"?) I'm sorry I asked for "clarification", if that's what you call that. I'm in full agreement with the others here that say your post(s) on this off-topic issue do not belong here. An uninvolved editor should close/archive this section immediately , before any additional distracting silliness is added. - theWOLFchild 00:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC) You asked for clarification so I replied. It shouldn't be necessary to "close" this; it's obvious we're talking past each other, and I'm not interested in trying to drive home points that others aren't hearing so I'm moving on to do other things. wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice

A discussion related to this topic is taking place at NPOV Noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style weapons are assault weapons

This term is legally defined, and AR-15-style rifles, unless heavily modified, constitute assault rifles. Failure to mention this is a violation of NPOV. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Two very similar edits were made.

[9] {tq|An AR-15 style rifle is a lightweight semi-automatic assault rifle}

[10] {tq|An AR-15 style rifle is a lightweight semi-automatic assault weapon}

"Assault weapon" (#2) is technically accurate, "assault rifle" (#1) is not. –dlthewave ☎ 21:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Numerous secondary sources refer to the AR-15 style rifle as an "assault rifle". The only opposition to use of the term is politically motivated. Assault weapons can be rifles, pistols or shotguns. As the AR-15 is a rifle, the term "assault rifle" is entirely correct, regardless anti-gun control organizations/individuals state. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

By way of further answer, the term "assault rifle" was coined by the gun industry, so it's use is non-controversial

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.

--KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• This article has been without "assault" anything in the lead for quite some. It was just now arbitrarily added, reverted and now Krapenhoeffer is edit-warring to retain it without any kind of consensus to do so. It should be removed per QUO until this is decided one way or the other. As the page is under DS, I suggest Krapenhoeffer self-revert for now while discussion takes place. - ^theWOLFchild 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It was added correctly, and I will not self-revert. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 22:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at assault rifle. The very first line says An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. This is the traditional definition that's been in place for over 50 years. Civilian AR-15s are not selective fire. They do not have fully-automatic capabilities. "Assault rifle" is primarily a technical description, and civilian AR-15s do not meet the definition. "Assault weapon" is a legal description in the US, that many, if no most, AR-15s do meet. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

that definition is an extremely narrow one adopted by a single military decades ago. The modern scholarly consensus is that the AR-15 is an assault rifle regardless of what muzzle device or grip it possesses. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the addition is fine; the rifle is commonly and consistently referred to in secondary sources as an "assault rifle". We follow the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Secondary sources can be wrong. Per WP:label we should avoid provocative or disputed labels. Assult rifle by widely held definition is select fire and thus not the subject of this article. Assult weapon is a nebulous political term who's definition varries by various laws. Some AR-15 type rifles were covered by the last federal legal definition. Others were not hence it's a problematic label. The original description avoids these issues. Your edits were made over the objection of two editors and at this point you are in violation of the edit warring guidelines. I would suggest you self revert. Springee (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's only disputed by ideologues, and as such is irrelevant from an NPOV perspective. This is the same situation as dealing with creationists. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 22:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If we put assault rifle in the lead, and someone clicks on that link, they will find an article about rifles with fully-automatic capabilities. This article is about a rifle without fully-automatic capabilities. We would be misinforming our readers to call this weapon an assault rifle. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's why I changed it to be semi-automatic, linking to semi-automatic rifle, followed by assault weapon, linking to assault weapon. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 22:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Read Assault_rifle#Characteristics. There are no semi-automatic assault rifles. And linking semi-automatic before it doesn't magically make that link change meaning to "an assault rifle, except not quite, because it's semi-automatic instead". All it does is contradict itself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

His assertion seems to be coming from this one source from what appears to be a very opinionated author. There are many sources that would contradict his assertions. Here is a definition from Oxford Dictionaries [11] and here from the Encyclopædia Britannica [12]. There are a plethora more that would all agree with this.

Editor KRAPENHOEFFER! also seem to be ill-informed as to the term, it comes from World War 2 and the German StG 44. The designation translates to "Assault rifle, model 1944", thereby introducing the term "assault rifle". The gun industry did not start this and if they did it would be here [13] -72bikers (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's from the Sturmgewehr 44, not the MP40. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct it was just a mistake that I was just about to fix, but thanks. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The inclusion of fully-automatic fire as an "essential feature" of an assault rifle is not insisted upon by any military in 2018. The adoption of the M16A2 by the US Army makes the Army's insistence that an assault rifle is necessarily fully-automatic deprecated. Furthermore, the various militaries of the world emphasize the use of semi-automatic fire with use of assault rifles, and not automatic fire. This isn't to say that AR-varients with modifications can't be shoehorned into other roles (the HK416's use as both a squad automatic rifle and DMR in the USMC come to mind). If we use a definition of assault rifle based on military doctrine (which we should - and it's what the entire world that isn't the US gun control debate uses), any semi-automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine counts. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 14:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't hard. One of the essential features of an assault rifle is select fire. Your previous comment about coined by the gun industry is wrong for two reasons, first it's factually wrong. Second, RS says we should when possible follow the experts in the field. Can you find an example of an expert in firearms using "assault rifle" to describe a semi-automatic rifle? The sources getting the term wrong are the ones who aren't experts in the field. Springee (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I will jump in and confirm what others are saying. Assault rifle is select fire and assault weapon is semi-automatic only. Some examples Mother Jones, CNBC,and Washington Post. There is a fine line between the two but an important one. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I could not have said it better Springee. His logic is flawed, to ignore the experts and replace with political ideology. He has been shown on many fronts his assertion are just plainly wrong. He has failed to contradict any of the point brought up and has just gone on to make more unsupported assertions. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You are again wrong basing your assertion on political ideology and ignoring dictionaries, encyclopedias, and experts in the field. -72bikers (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary says semiautomatics are assault rifles. This isn't ideology, this is facts. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's lead article on the subject, assault rifle, continues to use the factual historical and traditional definition, i.e., a select-fire rifle (as opposed to semi-automatic only). Hundreds of Wikipedia articles link to that article. If this is something you wish to pursue, you really need to propose the change at Talk:Assault rifle and gain community consensus to change the main article (probably through an RfC), which would then propagate outwards. For good reasons, I am skeptical that the community would break with the longstanding technical definition that to be an assault rifle it must be capable of selective fire, but you are free to try. I hope you can see that further arguments here on this article's Talk Page are likely just a waste of everyone's time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Webster definition was charged last month and has caused a bit of controversy. [[14]] Wikipedia says we should give experts in the field but more weight when there are questions like this. Do any experts share the recent revised Webster definition? Springee (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A motor vehicle parallel

A recent comment here expressed support for identifying specific types of motor vehicles associated with destructive misuse. There may be some misunderstanding about the breadth of devices being described as AR-15s or AR-15 style in the popular press. Since a relatively small percentage of readers seem familiar with these firearms, it may help to describe a motor vehicle parallel with which more people have first-hand experience: In the 1940s, the United States military developed an innovative motor vehicle known as the Jeep. Civilian ownership of Jeeps became popular after the war, and numerous manufacturers offered similar vehicles. Like AR-15, the term jeep was used by the uninformed to describe all manner of civilian 4-wheel drive production despite the name being licensed to a single manufacturer. Today what the motor vehicle industry calls sport utility vehicles (SUVs) are widely recognized as a significant percentage of production; but there seems reluctance to accept the firearms industry name of modern sporting rifles for the spectrum of models comprising a similarly high percentage of modern civilian firearms production. SUVs have already been criticized for poor fuel economy, and the deadly results to pedestrians struck by bullbars. The high ground clearance causes both increased injury risks to sedan passengers during collisions, and poor visibility while backing which has killed a number of children. With a few more high profile mass killings like the 2015 San Bernardino attack other jurisdictions may join Florence, Paris, and Vienna in debating whether there is any legitimate reason for civilian ownership of these military style vehicles. The Wikipedia Criticism of sport utility vehicles article has attempted to identify the specific characteristics of the various SUVs associated with these problems. By contrast, a simple statement that an SUV was involved in any specific event would inappropriately paint the entire spectrum of SUVs with potentially unwarranted blame. I hope sources for the criminal use section of this article (or some related criticism article) can be similarly specific about the firearm features considered significant in that event to avoid implicating models without those features. Thewellman (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Weapon of choice in the media

@AzureCitizen, Waleswatcher, and Kevinp2: We recently had a bit of a back and fourth about a small change to the article originating with this edit [[15]]. AzureCitizen is correct that with this double back and forth we need to go to the talk page next. I agree with Kevinp2's edit. Reading through the sources, is the "weapon of choice" claim something the reporters are quoting from an interviewed source or is it a statement/claim the reporter has put forth. It appears to me this is something the reporters have put forth as part of their articles which would mean we should make it clear that this is a claim made in the media vs say from the FBI. Thus adding something like "in the media" or "by the media" makes it clear where the claim originates. Springee (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the conversation here. I would be fine with adding the words "in the media" instead of "by the media." The latter has sourcing and interpretation problems while the former is accurate and indisputable. Will wait for others to comment. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "in" as well. I agree with waiting for others. Let's wait a week and see what input we get. Springee (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just the opposite. The sentence in question has 8 sources attached to the end, do any of them confirm that it was an interviewed/expert source, such as the FBI, being quoted, and that this isn't just editorializing by any members of the media? If there is no quote or confirmation, then we can't assume it's from from an interviewed/expert source as that would be wp:or, and therefore "by the media" is more appropriate. "In the media" is subject to interpretation, and can lead readers to think/believe the quote may be from an interviewed/expert source when it appears we have no confirmation of that. (But if we do, this is all moot. I just haven't gone thru all the refs). - ^theWOLFchild 16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not bound by Wiki policy, we can use OR which they've performed. –dlthewave ☎ 17:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That's odd... your friend K.e. basically told me just the opposite only a short while ago... - ^theWOLFchild 18:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Either version strikes me as both unnecessary and a violation of NPOV. For anything to be "widely characterized" it more or less must be reported in the media. Therefore to add "by the media" (or "in the media", which at least is more accurate) is not necessary (especially since the statement is immediately followed by references to said media). The NPOV concern comes because in the context of this article's subject, "the media" have often been demonized, declared the enemy of America, etc., so adding this unnecessary phrase sounds like an attempt to discredit or undermine what is actually just a simple statement of fact. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So who is making the characterization? Do any of the articles cite a source for the claim? If not it's an opinion shared in the media in which case it should be noted as such. I think the NPOV claim is a stretch in this case. Springee (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

who is making the characterization? - irrelevant. Again, the only way something can be "widely characterized" is for it to be reported in the media, regardless of whether such reports attribute the sentiment to some specific individual. In fact, "widely characterized" precisely means it's not just a few individuals making this claim. Since we cannot quote more than a few individuals, it's an impossible standard for this article to establish the truth of that statement in any way other than giving references to media articles. Anyway, I just added another reference that is not exactly media (it's a press release from an organization) and that attributes precisely this phrase to someone specific. Probably I can find more, but no more are needed.Waleswatcher (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (@Waleswatcher) Clarifying whether a quote is from a media source or the media itself is important, even crucial in some cases, regardless of "how it makes the media look". If we stick to facts, then if something the media has done that may reflect on them in a certain light, is not because of our actions, but their's. Take this "weapon of choice" quote for example. We post that then attach a source, (eg: CNN, NYT, etc,) then that gives the impression that whomever the media outlet is using as source material (eg: the FBI, the police, etc.) is responsible for that quote. But if it was the reporter or journalist themselves that added that quote to the report of their own accord, that is distinction we need to make. And, quite frankly, I don't see how that in any way "demonizes" the media, but neither do I see how it's our responsibility to safeguard the media's reputation. Like I said, as long as we stick to facts, then how it makes the media look is their problem, not ours. - ^theWOLFchild 17:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is making the claim isn't at all irrelevant. Your new addition says that a gun control group makes the claim. OK. So we have new media opinion and anti-gun group. That doesn't make your case stronger. Do we have actual criminologist or other experts making the claim? Springee (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That is incoherent. Showing that yet another report (and an individual) made this statement obviously strengthens the claim that AR-15s are "widely characterized" this way; to assert otherwise is simply nonsense. And how is an official at a gun control organization not an expert on gun use in crimes? And how is the New York Times "new media"? You're not making any sense. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• This has been discussed several times before but the consensus hasn't stuck. I think it's time to get more eyes with either an RfC or WP:RSN posting. –dlthewave ☎ 19:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

By forcing one groups opinions and failing to compromise is not how a consensus is made.

The rifle being the U.S. rifle of choice and thereby relatively cheap and readily available would lead to the opinion of choice than some redeeming factor. This assumption made by the media is just a one sided claim based on opinion. This would be only opinion and not fact based on there is no source in law enforcement that some redeeming factor made this distinction. By not stating this clarification that is made by the media you would promote a distinction that is just not true and mislead the readers. The source outside the media that made these comments "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." This source is filled with inaccuracies and is clearly just restating the medias comments simple because they support there views. The source is not a independently neutral or even a expert in the field of firearms or of any law enforcement agency.

I would like to point out there is now a movement by student in support of fire arms now like the opposition against. I state this to remind all of a need to find balance.

I truly believe no editor here is looking to exclude these horrid act form Wikipedia. But clearly there is a time and place for this content and by attempting to out weigh article content or introducing overly bias views is clearly not conducive to enriching Wiki articles.

I would like to post my support of "by". -72bikers (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Expert commentary

• Comment: the claim does not originate from the media. For example:

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 AR is the most popular rifle platform in the U.S.,” Blair said. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof,” he added.

More at: Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters, ABC News. Thus this edit should stand. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: re But this would be only opinion and not fact based on there is no source in law enforcement that made this distinction outside the media - no, it's not just the media making this "claim", but experts in the field, as shown in this section (immediately above). --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Restore original statement and clarify. -72bikers (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The experts in your article don't use the phrase "weapon of choice". If we are going to use that phrase we should be careful how it's supported. The article author said it but not the experts they interviewed. Perhaps we should use a more neutral expression. Springee (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree the experts he claim only state "(In some mass shootings), the shooter had low knowledge of firearms. They just grabbed what they know, and that’s the AR-15.” and “The AR is the most popular rifle platform in the U.S.,” Blair said." -72bikers (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"The experts in your article don't use the phrase "weapon of choice". If we are going to use that phrase we should be careful how it's supported. The article author said it but not the experts they interviewed." - and that is a clear example of a statement made by the media and is precisely why we need to make the distinction between some reporter and an actual expert. - ^theWOLFchild 18:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources that paraphrase the words of experts are used throughout Wikipedia. Could you point me to the policy or guideline that contradicts this common practice? –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Paraphrasing" an expert interviewee is one thing, an interviewer injecting their own personal, non-expert and even biased opinion is quite another. You wanna show me a policy that specifically allows that? - ^theWOLFchild 03:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how you could assert "weapon of choice" from the claimed experts. In fact as I already pointed out, exact words were "In some mass shootings", not sure how any reasonable person could paraphrase "weapon of choice" from that. -72bikers (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

As others have said, it is not only the media making this claim, so we cannot say (or imply) it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So far we have some media sources and a gun control group making the claim. I would suggest we simple drop the phrase "of choice" and use a more neutral phrasing. "Weapon of choice" is a problematic wp:label so dropping it rather than arguing about who applied it may be the best solution. Springee (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If we were saying this as a fact, maybe. We are not we are saying it as an opinion (which it is). Has anyone (RS) said it is not a weapon of choice?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant because we don't have to find a source that says that to dispute a contentious label. It's a contentious label and we should bypass the issue by just not using it. It's not of encyclopedic value so rather than argue we can sidestep the issue. Springee (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do, otherwise it is not contentious. NPOV means we include all signification viewpoints, if no viewpoint is expressed by RS that is contrary to what we include we do not have to include it. We have stated this is a widely held opinion, it is. Now do you have any RS for your claim it is one only held by the media?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

RS that disputes the claim [[16]]. Now let's call the spade what it is. Springee (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a blog (and is SPS to boot). But by all means lets say that is most crimes AR-15 type guns are not used...ohh wait we already do. So in fact we do already point this out. Now lets see if this source says it is only the media that say that this class of weapon is the problem "Politicians, activists, and journalists who have decided to blame mass shootings on "assault weapons" either do not acknowledge these facts or wave them away." So no he does not in fact say this is a view only held by the media.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason Magazine is not a self published source. The author is a senior editor with the magazine. This would be the equivalent of an editorial page in a newspaper. When considering such sources we can consider the quality of the arguments being made. WE also have other sources who dispute the label [[17]][[18]]. Vox attributes the statement... to the Boston Globe [[19]]. This earlier Reason article noted that a number of sources were saying that "assault weapons", not the AR-15 specifically, were the weapons of choice. Seems inconsistent but why do we need to get details right? Once again, the easy solution is simply remove the label. Springee (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No we do not take into account the quality of the arguments made (that is OR) we take into account who wrote it. And again, we have material about what guns are most commonly used in crime. "“Assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advocates believe,”", not the media (you will note). As to your last but one source, it only talks about a bans effects on mass shooting, not the commonality of use. As to your last source, we already have more then the Boston Globe, so it is redundant.Slatersteven (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality of argument does come in context where establishing weight. So we can give more weight to those who actually make a case that the weapon of choice label is wrong if the other side isn't making an argument why it's correct. The passage you quoted is correct but could also be expanded to included the press. Are you in support of such an expansion? Clearly we have other news sources that claim they label is wrong. The NR article contradicts the use of the label by stating that handguns are the weapon of choice based on the data. The same data used by Reason. The Vox source is illustrative as to how this label became misapplied to the AR-15 (and assault weapons). At the end of the day we have a label that we can avoid without reducing the quality of the article. Why would we keep it? Springee (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your point is not "also includes then press" it is "only includes the press". And again we already include the information about handguns. None of your arguments for exclusion stand up to scrutiny, we do include the rebuttal information, we do not say it is a fact. Moreover this was not what this was about, it was about only the media saying it (and thus that is what we should say), which is also not true. Now if you want to expand it to say "characterized as such by Politicians, guns rights activists and the media", well that is unnecessary verbosity when we caq just say what we say now, "widely characterized". Exclusion of the "label" is another issue, a separate one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't get the argument right. Regardless, rather than argue about how to limit the scope of who applied the label, follow wp:label and remove the controversial label. Springee (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

od"@AzureCitizen, Waleswatcher, and Kevinp2: We recently had a bit of a back and fourth about a small change to the article originating with this edit 29. AzureCitizen is correct that with this double back and forth we need to go to the talk page next. I agree with Kevinp2's edit. Reading through the sources, is the "weapon of choice" claim something the reporters are quoting from an interviewed source or is it a statement/claim the reporter has put forth. It appears to me this is something the reporters have put forth as part of their articles which would mean we should make it clear that this is a claim made in the media vs say from the FBI. Thus adding something like "in the media" or "by the media" makes it clear where the claim originates." This is the point raised, the one we are disusing. As to WP:label, I suggest you read it, it does not forbid us form using labels. And does not seem to cover "labels" like the one we are using here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we started with a RS question but I've raised the label question. It is a contentious label and we've shown that RSs disagree with its application here. Springee (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

So have you now closed the question about adding "the media", do you now accept that is not a valid point? We cannot talk about two separate issues in the same thread.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm bypassing the argument. Springee (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please start a new section or subsection if you would like to raise a different objection. Jumping from one issue to another within the same thread does not help us build consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's still relevant and this is where the discussion had gone. If you wish to create a separate soon topic you are welcome to. I've bought up label as a way to bypass the disagreement about sources. The label is controversial and no evidence exists that experts agree. Thus we can either be specific about who applied the label, some media, pro-gun control politicians and gun control groups, or we can avoid the problem by removing a contentious label per wp:label. Springee (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

By the media seems reasonable given that it is a very narrow view of mass shootings only brought up by the media. I have not seen an expert actually make that claim. Basically a minority of mass shootings use AR-15 style rifles with the rest overwhelmingly being handguns. Feels like reaching to me. PackMecEng (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I am asking an uninvolved user to close this as it is now rambling all over the place and is becoming unfocused. We now now discussing at least two separate matters (maybe more). I think it is going to be nigh impossible to get consensus on the original question, and it is only clouding the new issues keeping this open.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a RfC. Since the discussion is focused on the content there is no reason to closet it. No one is required to reply if they don't wish to. Springee (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well lets put it like this, you do not have consensus for whatever suggestion you have made. All we are doing is going round a series of circular arguments that keep getting modified whenever an objection is raised. All that is happening is this thread is being kept open for no good purpose now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You are free to drop out of the discussion if you feel you have nothing to add. The WP:Label question hasn't been addressed by the wider group and what we do have is a dispute about the validity of material that hasn't been in the article for that long hence we shouldn't assume the text as-is represents the consensus view and currently there are more editors who favor a change than not. This isn't a long established passage. Perhaps we both should propose modifications to the texts that might placate both sides (I'm pointing fingers at both of us). If I get some time today I'll give it a shot. Springee (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Until l we have a firm decision on what we are discussing I cannot propose or support any modification. I thus oppose any change until such time as I know what we are actually discussing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. Springee, if you wish to propose removing this "label" as you characterize it, please start a new discussion in a new section of the talk page. Suddenly changing course deep in a thread on something else is not the way to build consensus for a change, as I'm sure you're well aware. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Walewatcher, I didn't suddenly change the course. I've made the label argument almost from the beginning. The discussion centered around the text in question, I offered the alternative to the protracted RS discussion. Still, rather than debate that, why don't we look forward to ways to edit the text to make all involved satisfied. I've taken a crack at that below. Springee (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text changes

As a way past the above I would propose the following changes to the text. It consists of a neutral intro sentence that says we have a controversy (exact phrasing could use work). The next sentence is almost verbatim other than I removed "widely" from "characterized as". Finally, I added a following sentence where the label is disputed with sources. I thought about putting some of the reasons why the label is disputed in that sentence but left them out for now.

AR-15 style rifles as well as similar rifles have become controversial due to their use in mass shootings.[Intro sentence, no additional citation] While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns,[52][53][54] 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 characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. The accuracy of this characterization, however, has been disputed[WP, Reason, NR articles]. AR-15 variants have been used in mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[64] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[64] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[65]

This text puts the label in context and shows that it isn't universally accepted and that it isn't accurate. At the same time it doesn't add the qualifiers that were points of objection above. The intro sentence to the section is something that is needed because the current text doesn't really have one. Springee (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. An intro sentence might be a good idea, but yours is redundant with what immediately follows. Furthermore you removed "widely" for no reason. Lastly, if we are going to include references that dispute that AR-15s are in fact the weapon of choice for mass shootings on the grounds that handguns are used more, we should move the "While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns.." phrase and its citations to after the sentence about the characterization, to where the dispute is described. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This says the same thing twice thus violates undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The current handgun statement refers to crimes in general. The later sentence I added specifically addresses the "weapon of choice" label. They aren't redundant but I agree that a grouping of the two would perhaps flow better. I removed widely because we have sources that dispute it and many sorces don't use it. But I wouldn't fight to keep it out if we can come to an agreement on the rest of the text. WW, I'm not in love with the intro sentence, do you have a suggestion? Springee (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops edit timing, I see a reply below. Springee (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTc)

Which source disputes the claim "widely characterized"? As far as I can tell not one of your sources said this was not a widely held view, just an incorrect one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Which sources support "widely characterized"? "Widely" is a judgement call that wiki editors added. I think this sort of thing comes up in various articles. How do we as editors decide when something is say a "widely held belief" vs a "belief held by many" vs just a "belief". Your point is good but it actually supports removal of "widely" vs keeping it. Springee (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We decide based upon the number of sources that we would have to attribute. This is not some minority view held by a few, the shear number of sources makes that clear.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

So we do OR to make the call? Springee (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not OR to say a lot of people hold the view. Really I do not get this objection. We do not need to source the blindly obvious, and it is blindly obvious that this ism a widely held view. Even some of your sources make it clear this is a view held across a large spectrum of people ("Even horror author Anne Rice"). It is colloquially called short hand, using one word to replace ten "Politicians, activists, journalists, Anne Rice" (and god knows who else, after all are all those kids "activists).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's simple. You said we can't remove "widely" without a source that says it isn't a widely held view. As I said, I'm not going to die on that hill but it's logically wrong to say we need a source to dispute "widely" when we don't have one that actually makes the claim in the first place. "Widely" currently comes from the opinion of the involved editors, not from a RS. So, how can we judge "widely"? If we say, well 15 sources say it, is that widely or just the benefit of web text searches. Conversely, did we search the number of related sources that didn't say it? Kind of hard since that is the web search equivalent of proving a negative. In the end, "widely" is an opinion of how often this characterization occurs and it was an opinion offered by Wikipedia editors, not our sources. Any time we add a subjective modifier to express quantity (widely, many, a lot, etc) it's subject to dispute. In many cases it isn't challenged but sometimes it is. I think it should be removed from the text but I'm not going to oppose an otherwise good compromise for that single word. That doesn't mean you are correct. So do you have any proposals for how we can improve the text that has been suggested? Springee (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Then we are not going to get a compromise, because unless we list everyone who has said this (to demonstrate how widely (or not)) it is held no text will be satisfactory. So we cannot change it, as we have no consensus for changing it. Widely does not mean majority or even Massively, it just means by a large number of people. As (I said I find your objections to the use of the word bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an illogical conclusion and not supported by policy or guidelines. Compromise is "I'm not going to die on that hill". If it's so important to you to keep it fine, we can keep it even though it's a subjective editorial call, not a RS'ed statement. Widely is going to depend on the number of people involved. A view widely held in a group of say 200 people might mean 150. The same 150 people holding the view out of a population of 10,000 is no longer widely held. So again, "widely" is a context dependent statement. It's fine for you to say "seems widely to me" but where your arguments failed is when you said it would take a RS to remove the claim of widely even though we don't have a RS that makes the claim. Again, I'm not going to hold things up because you don't want to remove that word. Just understand that your argument, "Which source disputes the claim "widely characterized"?" Well which RS supports the claim "widely characterized"? If you can't cite one then we certainly don't need one to remove the claim. Springee (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Then replace it with a full list of all those who think it, I see it as a short hand for that list. But if you are not happy wityh the shorthand write it long hand.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a nonsense suggestion to a problem you seem to have invented. Yes, I don't think we have a RS that supports the claim "widely" and per policy I believe it can be removed. However, as I've repeatedly said (again you seem to have missed this), I'm not going to fight to remove it. However, you offered the nonsense idea that we would need a RS to say it isn't widely held. My point this whole time is that such statements, if challenged, normally need RS support, not the opposite as you claim. We sure have wasted a lot of text arguing about this. Perhaps you could offer a rewrite suggestion as to how we might incorporate the RS objections to the characterization into the text. Springee (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said when we have a firm idea of what it is that is being objected to maybe. So what is it, the exclusion of Media, the inclusion of widely the use the the term "weapon of choice", or something else that I have missed or you have not thought of yet?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit break)

My proposal:

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.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] AR-15 variants have been used in many mass shootings in the United States, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[64] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[64] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[65] [AND THE WAFFLE HOUSE SHOOTING?] However, the accuracy of this characterization has been disputed [REFS], as most gun killings [AND MASS SHOOTINGS?] in the United States are with handguns.[52][53][54]

Waleswatcher (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We should not put the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• More work needed but progress @Waleswatcher:, I agree with Slatersteven's wikivoice concern. I think an intro sentence and some type of preface would work there. I wouldn't add additional shootings without consensus since that has been a separate area of dispute. The "However, the accuracy of this characterization" is vague. If it doesn't immediately follow the "weapon of choice" sentence then we should say something like, "the accuracy of the "weapon of choice" characterization...". Also, the current handgun vs rifle sources were supporting a statement about crime in general. The sources I recently proposed specifically dispute the "weapon of choice" statement and are talking specifically about mass shootings, not crime in general. We should keep that clear in the text. Still, I think we are moving forward. Got to go but thanks for the engagement! Springee (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This statement "and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." is not accurate. The statement has only been shown to be used by the media and the one article that they put forth from there expert support, clearly only stated "In some mass shootings". Without the context of this view you are misleading the readers. If keeping this, it should be immediately followed by "However, the accuracy of this characterization has been disputed, and also that most gun killings in the United States are with handguns.-72bikers (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In defense of the text, it doesn't claim the characterization is correct only that the rifle has become "widely characterized as...". I agree that absent other context it can be misleading because it would suggest the view is widely held by experts or isn't challenged, the first hasn't been shown, and we do have RSs that challenge the statement. What we are currently missing is inclusion of the sources that say why the characterization is wrong. Also, as you said, we don't currently say who makes the characterization, but I think we could bypass that problem. By include a statement explaining why other RSs disagree with the characterization it becomes less important to say who specifically makes the claim as anyone who wants to know that level of detail can read the sources. Springee (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on Waleswatcher's proposal:

Due to their use in mass shootings AR-15 style rifles as well as similar rifles have become controversial.[Intro sentence, no additional citation] AR-15 style rifles are said to play "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[52] mass shootings in the United States, and are widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] AR-15 variants have been used in many mass shootings in the United States, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[64] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[64] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[65] However, the accuracy of the "weapon of choice" characterization is disputed as most mass shootings occur in the United States occure with handguns.[REFs] Additionally, rifles overall, including AR-15s, are disproportionately not used in firearms homicides in general.[52][53][54][verify this is accurate to the refs]

Still not happy with the intro sentence. I've fixed the next sentence (which was verbatim from the current article) so it's no longer in Wiki voice. The final two sentences make the two points related to handgun vs Ar-15 crime use. So the first, directly disputes the "weapon of choice" in relation to mass shootings. The second is the more general and notes relative crime rates between handguns and rifles (what was the first sentence). Springee (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Wow, this page suddenly blew up. After trying to follow this debate, I have 2 questions; when saying this view is "widely" held... by who? If that isn't qualified in the source, then it shouldn't be added. Waaay to much undue weight attached to that. It needs to be qualified, as in an RS clearly confirming that this view is widely held by unbiased experts on this topic, not just by the reporter and his buddies in the newsroom, or by some gun-control group. We need unbiasd, expert opinions supporting this. Next question; as for the "weapons of choice" comment, again... do we have RS confirmation on this? From unbiased, expert sources? Or just a reporter? Or none at all? I haven't read through all the refs in this article, but according to 72bikers comments, there is a serious issue with this phrase. If there is going to be a straw poll here to gauge consensus on how this should be written, what stays, what goes, etc., then it should be clear just what it is we're commenting (!voting) on. I appreciate Springee's efforts here to keep this neutral, but some of the comments by a couple of the others users here have made this while thing difficult to follow. - ^theWOLFchild 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose putting the Reason piece in there if that's the only source you have for the 'disputed' comment. It's a blog, an opinion piece, and WP:UNDUE relative to the overwhelming weight of the sources you're trying to weigh it against. If it is as controversial a position as you believe it to be, it should be easy to find mainstream non-opinion pieces commenting on that fact; conversely, if a blog post is the best you can come up with disputing it, it seems reasonable to say that it is not, in fact, all that controversial. The final sentence, from the way you're wording it, looks like WP:SYNTH - we can only use those sources if they specifically talk about the claim that AR-15s are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason's editorial is as reliable as any other and is absolutely main stream. However, it isn't the only source that disputes the claim. I've included the others in a previous edit. The handgun vs rifle claim is already in the article and was discussed at the time of inclusion. Springee (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To expand on the above, here are some rifle/AR-15 vs handgun sources. HuffPo[[20]] that starts with the broad statement about "assault weapons" but also ties that back to AR-15s as a subtype of "assault weapon". Same HuffPo reporter a few years later[[21]]. Here's the NYT making the same connection for us [[22]].

The the sources that counter the "of choice: claim are, Reason (more than once), Washpost[[23]], and National Review [[24]]. We also have statistical sources [[25]], WashPost again but in a more round about way (9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon) [[26]], Washington Examiner, specifically noting "media hype about mass shootings" stating handguns, not 'assault rifles' used most [[27]] Springee (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I again point out they have no expert support, in fact there only claimed expert to support them only states "In some mass shootings". This only supports what we are saying, so we have expert support in there eyes on this label not being accurate-72bikers (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence in the crime section is opinion. "AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[53] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" makes zero factual claims.

What is "an oversized role"? The article cited as support doesn't give statistics that say AR15 use in crimes is disproportionate compared to gun ownership for example. "High profile" is a value judgement and listing those crimes specifically is a much better approach, which is done at least partially already in the section. A citation of FBI statistics such as they exist would be a better approach at the same content as well.

"Widely characterized as a weapon of choice" is also problematic. Why is a value judgement on the prevalence of a belief useful content? There isn't any poll to support this claim and it would be better to directly cite experts rather than a straight appeal to a perceived wisdom of the crowd. The citations offer weak support of those claims at best, and for several I'd say it's an intentional misreading of the article. Plucking opinion sentences from a news article is still opinion, the fact that you need 9 citations on this clause is ludicrous from a style standpoint as well. A better way to have similar content is to mention the political support for a reinstatement of law that ban AR15s, this is verifiable and gives context to an arguably important policy opinion in the current day.68.62.102.135 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Combine

If no one objects I would like to combine the ten references for the media distinction, so that it does not hamper the reading of the content. When the above conversation is done.-72bikers (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN Discussion

I opened a discussion at RSN to solicit wider input. –dlthewave ☎ 14:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Federal assault weapons ban

Does not say it was banned for looking military it says

"‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means— ‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as— ‘‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); ‘‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; ‘‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70); ‘‘(iv) Colt AR–15; ‘‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;"

Nothing about it looking military.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The law says quite a bit more than that but I agree the text is currently unsupported. We should have something that mentions the attributes in question as well as something that describes the significance of the features. More than a few sources described some of the features as cosmetic vs functional (carry handle, flash suppressor) while others were functionally relevant (semi auto, replaceable magazine). Part of why this is relevant would be to explain why some new AR-15s were legal for sale after the law was passed. Springee (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Not in the lead though, that is for summering the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason a brief phase, similar in length to what was removed but with sourcing, can't be in the intro. The problem with the earlier text was a lack of citation, not that such material was inappropriate for the location. Springee (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Because policy says that is what the intro is for, paraphrasing the article. Please see MOS:LEAD.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How was the previous material not in compliance with MOS? A brief phase added to the sentence is still in compliance. Springee (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And the removed material is a basic fact. Springee (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Not about the item, as it is not solely about it. In fact (as you point out) this is a complex matter that has many POV attacked to it. As such it's place is an in depth analysis in the body. So care to explain how gun control legislation is a basic fact about the gun type?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a brief intro to the subject. I'm not saying the exact text was ok but now you are changing your objections. That is exactly what you were getting on me about in the section above. Either way, if a reliably sourced statement is found we can replace the removed text. Springee (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You were the one who said it should still be in the lead, I am answering your point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You started this discussion by saying the material wasn't properly sourced, not that it shouldn't be in the lead. I just said replace it with some better sourced material. You added the new objection related to the lead. So long as the phrase is not too long I don't see that your objection has merit.Springee (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I was explaining our manual of style and what the lead is for. I fail to see why this has to be in the lead rather then the body. It is not a new objection it is a response to your suggestion. I did not raise the issue of the lead, you did.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you should review. "Not in the lead though" is the first mention of the lead and it wasn't said by me. Springee (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, you just said we should have something about it (not where), of course I never said we should not mention it. So I assumed (incorrectly it seems) you meant in the area I removed it from. A mistake for which I appoligise.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, thank you for the apology. I think we were both getting frustrated and to be honest I was probably digging in my heals out of back and forth frustration. Perhaps the better option is to add the AWB content then decide what if any should go in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll start up a new thread, I would rather keep conversations on target if possible.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait are you trying to suggest that the assault weapons ban was not a major part of the history of these style of weapons? PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying it is not a basic fact about them. It tells us nothing about the weapon. I am saying that it is a rather complex subject that needs to be discussed in more detail before adding a brief mention in the lead about the ban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Editor Slatersteven you have repeatedly contradicted yourself. this is what was stated by a gun control advocate "semi-automatic, military style weapons that were formerly banned under federal law are now legal unless banned by state or local law." The wording removed "due to its military-like appearance". Is style not appearance? Also the ban was enacted on cosmetic features found on military firearms. In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced." -72bikers (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It depends on context, A french style wine is French in style not because of its appearance. So it depends on what they mean by "military style", Look, or use, or functionality. In addition "gun control advocate" is not "the Federal Assault Weapons Ban", and thus is an opinion only (that would have to have been attributed. Also "a cosmetic feature" and " a military feature" are not the same. At best we can only say that "according to X it was banned..."Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your response seem to defy reason. All you have stated seems to be just your opinions in dismissing factual content. -72bikers (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Federal assault weapons ban (in body)

There is no reason why we cannot have a section about the Federal assault weapons ban but anything not expliclty said in the text of the act needs to be properly attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think the first question is where would this go in the article? It could be part of the sales section. That section talks about sales in the 1990s and notes the flat top uppers. I would guess those were sold in part because the "carry handle" of the earlier AR-15 rifles was listed as one of the features that counted towards getting a rifle banned. Anyway, since there is a primary article on the subject I think we should keep things to just a paragraph and start the text with a link to the primary article.

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity." [that sentence is taken right from the lead of the other article] Several AR-15 style rifles were prohibited by name in the law.[cite] Additionally a list of restricted features[link to section of AWB article] was created. A rifle with two or more listed features would be defined as an assault weapon. As a result of the law, Federal Assault Weapons Ban compliant rifles were introduced by a number of manufactures.

That part needs citations but I figure that won't be hard based on getting some from the parent article. The next part, if consensus supports inclusion, is a bit harder since it could easily turn political. A number of manufactures produced Ar-15 type rifles during the period of the ban. It wasn't hard to remove a few features that were cosmetic to the non-military user in order to comply with the law. The gun rights people see this as simply complying with the law. The gun control people see this as exploiting a loophole. So how can we describe it in a neutral tone. I would prefer to keep it fact based, "manufactures produced rifles with no more than two listed features" (say which features where often removed if we can find a citation). Then I would like to, in the most neutral way possible and with balanced references, say that some saw this as using a loophole to defy the law while others said it was simply complying with the law.

I know that isn't a complete text but I thought I would see what people think of the general structure. I don't know about others, but sometimes I find it much harder to come up with my own text from scratch vs identifying what I think needs fixing in an existing block of text... Well that and arguing about what should/shouldn't be in. Springee (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the term "loophole" specifically mentioned? (Repeatedly, prominently and by neutral, expert sources?) Do any sources say that instead of a "loophole", that some gun-control groups found the law "insufficient"? (or "weak", or "soft", etc.) If so, perhaps we could say that "pro-gun groups were simply following the law while anti-gun groups felt the law didn't go far enough"... with whatever wording changes are needed, and with appropriate sourcing of course. The most neutral way to present that situation is to keep it simple; pro-gun felt law was too much, anti-gun felt it was too little... something along those lines, while avoiding buzzwords like "loopholes". - ^theWOLFchild 04:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reference stating that the carry handle was removed due to the ban? I couldn't find any mention of carry handles in the AWB article or the text of the law. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's speculation on my part and not part of my proposed text. The article mentions that flat top receivers became common in the 1990s and I think at least one of the assault weapons laws (there were a number of state laws in addition to the federal law) mentions carry handles. However, we also have accessory sights and optics becoming more common. Springee (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this belongs in the Production and Sales section, it's an essential part of the production history. We can also add the fact that production of non-compliant rifles was temporarily ramped up just before the ban took effect.

The current sources use the word "loophole", it's neutral and well-supported. It would also be factual to say that the ban did not achieve its intended purpose. We could say something like "The law was intended to ban certain types of rifles but included a loophole that allowed manufactures to continue producing similar designs with sight modifications." Like most loopholes, the criticism is directed at the law itself and not toward the manufactures that were simply complying with the law. I would leave pro-gun/anti-gun out of it altogether since it's not just interest groups that are saying this.–dlthewave ☎ 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence about mentioning the loophole aspects since they are covered in the primary article. I think "loophole" in this case needs to be treated as a contentious label because it suggests sneaking around the law. In Wiki voice we should say "compliant" or similar. However, if we are going to mention the controversy then we should say that gun control advocates argued this was a loophole in the law (thus attributing "loophole" to a group). I think we should avoid discussing the intent of the law and saying the law did or didn't contain a loophole. That's really a topic best left to the AWB page and if you are a textualist then the law only intended what it covers, not what people felt it should have covered. I think the ramp in sales of pre-ban guns can be mentioned but we need to be careful how that is done. Remember that such a run up in production is driven by consumer demand and is 100% legal. Still, it fits well within a broader discussion of the sales of the gun. From memory the sales of AR-15s were relatively small until they were about to be banned (people many not have realized that AWB compliant guns would be available). When the ban was expected there was a rust to purchase before the law went into effect. Then we had the "compliant" period. I'm not sure what sales looked like then. I don't know if we have post ban, pre-Obama sales data. Then we have the spikes in sales associated with the fear that Obama would pass gun laws shortly after his election (with a super majority senate and house). Things calmned the spiked again after Sandy Hook. Then sales fell off with a GOP presidential election. Anyway, that's drifting off subject, rather political and all from memory... still, its material that did drive sales. Springee (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The rise and fall in sales related to legislation and elections is quite interesting and I would consider the statistics themselves to be uncontroversial facts. This would be a great way to expand the article. I think it makes sense to briefly explain the ban, the loopholes and their effect on sales/production in this article, leaving the rest to AWB. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the impact on sales is very relevant in the sales section. I like your plan overall. I'm not sure how to briefly explain the ban and if we are going to say loophole we should make it clear that the term is contested. Otherwise. I think we are in agreement. I'll see if I can find some sources. Springee (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Reported in The Washington Post about this type of gun and the ban. "Critics of bans on assault weapons, however, say they do little to save lives. The NRA correctly points out that assault weapons are used only in a tiny fraction of gun crimes. The gun rights group also notes that a federally funded study of the previous assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, concluded that “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”" -72bikers (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The federal weapons ban lists the AR-15 as one of the specific types.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point but I think it was the Colt AR-15 (since Colt owns the trademark). I think several others such as a few Bushmaster models were also listed by name. Perhaps we should say that some AR-15 type rifles, including the "Colt AR-15(TM)" were prohibited by name. It does beg the question, how much is too much for this article vs the primary article on the subject? Springee (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We should probably make at least some change to this content in the lead. Right now it says, "... although it did not affect rifles with fewer features." Without more text it's not at all clear what "features" is referring to. I would propose the lead be reduced to just say "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the production and sale of some versions of the rifle." (or similar). The details of what and why can be covered later in the text. Springee (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said I do not think this should be in the lead without anything in the body. We should have a section in the body before adding anything more to the lead. Oh and the act bans (by name) AR-15 type weapons.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

I agree, we need more content in the body to support the lead. While I think the lead needs help, it can wait for the body work first. I agree the law bans some AR-15 type rifles (including the Colt AR-15 (TM)) by name, but it doesn't ban them by type since the law couldn't actually do that. Instead it defined features that when combined created a prohibited rifle. Springee (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But that did not target the AR-15 as such, and thus was not used to define AR-15 derivatives as assault weapons, but rather to define a style of gun (which some AR-125 derivatives matched) as assault weapons. This is why I do not think such a claim "military style features made AR-15's illegal" or some such is undue. It is not about the AR-15 but any semi-auto with said features.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we are probably in agreement but don't realize it. The law had two ways to define what was an "assault weapon". The first was a list of guns by name. That included some AR-15 type rifles including the Colt AR-15 (tm), as well as clear AR-15 type rifles like several Bushmaster models. However, there were many AR-15 type rifles that were not listed by name because, for instance, the mfr was too small for the bill to list by name. So the law had the second, feature based definition. The feature based definition is the one that really mattered since a mfr of a banned by name model was legally free to change the name, make sure the newly named rifle didn't violate two or more feature criteria and then it was legal. You are correct that it was by name that some specific brand/models of AR-15 type rifles were made illegal but that didn't apply generically (and this article is about the generic rifle). Springee (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is we cannot claim that these "feature" restrictions were targeted at the AR-15. Either to ban them or define them, as it was not about them, nor can it be in the lead, as it is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see the point you are making. I don't agree that the feature list was meant just for other rifles and legally there were several AR-15 style rifles named which meant that the law makers acknowledged that similar rifles were made by more than one manufacture. Furthermore, much of the retrospective discussion of the law talked about how these rifles continued to be produced during the period of the ban due to new models complying with the features list. Springee (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And I am not saying that, I am saying we cannot imply it was targeted at the AR-15. In the body we can say "it was represented as targeting the AR-15" if we have RS saying that). But the lead should either be a summery of important parts of the article, or material that is important to the topic, and whilst the assault weapon ban may well be, specific text withing the ban (unless explicitly naming the AR-15) is not about the AR-15, but about assault weapons in general.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In the lead I think we should skip mentioning it. In the body I think we can say some make-models were mentioned by name but the feature list would apply to all AR-15 type rifles regardless of manufacture. Remember, even though we call these all AR-15s, that is a trademark name owned by Colt. I suspect many smaller mfrs were not mentioned but the rules still applied to their rifles as well. Regardless, I think we can come up with text that will both be happy with. Springee (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We don't need to mention the FAWB in the lead. - ^theWOLFchild 11:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of mentioning it in the lead but only briefly. Springee (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets keep what we have for now, but not expand it and work on the body text first.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel if you are to mention this it should be made clear and concise to the reader, with wording supported by the reference. -72bikers (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

it does at the moment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with handguns

(Removed sock edits per WP:EVADE)

• These descriptions apply to some, but not all, of the various modern sporting rifles being described as AR-15 style. It is important to specify which cartridge the rifle in question was chambered for, as some are chambered for handgun cartridges, and some fire larger bullets, and/or have smaller magazines. Thewellman (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Quantify prevalence in mass shootings and identify recent time frame

(removed sock edits per WP:EDVADE)

This really gets to the heart of the disagreement. Although AR-15 style rifles haven't been used in the most mass shootings, they have played a role in the deadliest ones. This is why it is described as playing an "outsized role" and as the "weapon of choice". Most of the "conflicting" sources that have been brought forward do not address these specific metrics. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Note IP has been blocked as a HughD sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• If handguns are used in the majority of these crimes and ARs are in the minority, then it would seem that handguns are the "weapon of choice". - ^theWOLFchild 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well not in the most recent cases, which is I think the point. That is why a time frame might be relevant. In fact it only seems to be over the last 10 years that the AR-15 derivatives have become so popular among the perpetrators of such crimes (in fact it was first used in this way in 2007, why is open to question, but it may be no accident that sales boomed over this period as well).Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Facts make this claim a untruth and simple misleads the readers because of recent news cycles. =72bikers (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Which fact? that there has been a rise in their use?Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of "many" in lead

Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, according to the New York Times. It has been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association. It has been used in many mass shootings in the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban restricted the Colt AR-15 and derivatives from 1994-2004, although it did not affect rifles with fewer features. There are an estimated 10-12 million in circulation in the United States.

References

The word "many" has been added and removed several times. My opinion is that we should give the reader some idea of the magnitude of its mass shooting use, and the sentence could be improved with more precise wording. –dlthewave ☎ 02:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, thanks for taking the lead on this discussion. I don't like "many" because it's a poorly defined term. How many is many? It also, in this context, imparts a value judgment that we should avoid with out attribution. I've been trying to think of something other than "many" since we are certainly dealing with more than just one. I would suggest something like "a number of". It's less value laden while still making it clear this isn't a case of just the examples listed. Given the political nature of mass shootings, which isn't the subject of this article, I favor a "just the facts" approach. Springee (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly there have been many. "A number of" is weasel wording. And if User:Springee doesn't consider the mass shootings currently listed as sufficient to justify many, I wonder why s/he earlier prevented me from adding the Waffle House shooting? Then, the justification was that it somehow wasn't sufficiently notable. Now, there aren't enough to justify "many"? Also, "many" has been in the article for quite a while before being "stealth removed" by User:72bikers. My attempt to return the page to its previous form so we could reach a consensus here was blocked. I have no wish to start an edit war, but I think the page should be returned to its long-standing wording until/unless there is consensus on a change. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

WW, "a number of" is less weasel than "many" because it has no value judgement (large, small, a lot, a few etc). I said why "many" is a nebulous term and the Wafflehouse shooting was kept out for unrelated reasons. I would be more OK saying something like "the rifle has been subject to controversy due to it's use in mass shootings". I mean, that is why we are adding mass shootings to the article. Because of the controversy. Also, the inclusion of "many" isn't long standing. It was part of a wave of recent edits. Springee (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"A number of" is classic weaselease. It can mean anything and therefore means nothing. "Many" makes no value judgement; it is a simple statement of fact. "the rifle has been subject to controversy due to it's use in mass shootings" - first off, bad grammar. More importantly, this is again weaselease. What use? Why this rifle type and not others? The answer, of course, is that it's because this rifle type (and not others) has been used in many very deadly mass shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a weasel in your opinion. You are correct that it could mean anything but, and this is where you are incorrect, it doesn't impart a value judgment like "many". How do we define many? "I've had many flat tires." Well is that 2, 4, 16, 32? How many is "many" to you? "Many" is context sensitive since, say the total number of mass shootings in the US is insignificant compared to the many dollars the US spends on health care. The "many" deaths due to AR-15 type rifles used in mass shootings is small compared to the many deaths due to criminal homicide of all types in the US or due to traffic fatalities. We have to apply some level of judgment to decide when something is "many". Springee (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"You are correct that it could mean anything but..." Thanks for acknowledging that I am correct and your wording ("...a number of") is indeed weaselease. Again, "many" is not a "value judgement". It is a simple statement of fact. Yes, it is context sensitive (like essentially every other word in English) - and in the context of mass shootings, there is not the shadow of a doubt that this qualifies. Moreover, it ("many") is stated in precisely those words in the reliable sources we quote in the body of the article, so this word in the lede is simply summarizing the article as per wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agreed that "a number of" is not a defined term but claiming I agreed with you that it's a weasel word is dishonest. Springee (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The word "many" simply is not needed. There is a "Use in crime and mass shootings" section that lists all the shootings which also links to the "list of mass shootings", so readers can see (and judge) for themselves just how "many", (or how few) shootings the AR has been involved in. This is an unnecessary buzzword that only adds opinion, not fact along with undue weight. - ^theWOLFchild 02:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Many seems an inappropriately subjective quantifier. The FBI defines mass murder as an event resulting in four or more fatalities. If handguns have been used in most of these events, but rifles have been a significant factor in those with higher casualty counts, the use of many in this context might be inappropriately interpreted as a major fraction of these events -- perhaps suggesting most. Has a reliable secondary source specified a count? A count would be the best alternative. Several might be a more appropriate quantifier in the absence of of a count; but I agree no quantifier is needed. A single mass murder is a tragedy, and the plural form is clearly worse. Thewellman (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that say "many", and we say so in the text. The lede is supposed to summarize the text. If you prefer a count, what about "at least six mass shootings with at least fifteen fatalities." Do you really prefer that? We have reliable sources for all of those already in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Disregarding my reservations about publishing an instruction manual for mass murder, I consider that proposed at least quantification preferable to using many; although I suggest that level of detail is better suited to the explanatory paragraph than to the leading summary. The problem with many is the lack of any comparison offering a clue to the logical question: "How many?" Readers reducing the tragedy of mass murder to statistics (possibly including those hoping to set a new record) will find value in definite quantification which many cannot provide. Thewellman (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The RS we use to support the sentence in the lead does not use many. Which RS do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In the section on mass shootings: "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile..." Ref 55, a CBS news article. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're basing it on this quote, then it is being taken out of context with the manner you're attempting to insert it into the article, which is just all the more the more reason to not use it, along with all the reasons listed by myself and others above. That's not even taking into account the fact that that the quote is not from an unbiased, neutral expert, but is only from the reporter, an unnamed reporter from the AP at that. - ^theWOLFchild 05:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree I think the text "at least six mass shootings with at least fifteen fatalities." solves the issue, if we cannot have a vague (textual) estimate lets just say how many.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Many is not widely used or supported by the refs we cite, a couple use it and most do not. Just remove many and move on. PackMecEng (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Did I say we should include "many", I think I said we should just say how many. Is there a valid reason for rejecting this, after all is it now how many there are that is at the gist of obejction to "Many"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To much explanation for the lead, that belongs in the body plus adds unneeded POV. So no, just remove many and leave the sentence concise. PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The original objection to "many" was that it is imprecise and/or POV. Neither of these objections holds any water, as was clear from the beginning and is now even more obvious. When a precise alternative is offered - saying in a few words precisely how many, as reported in the body of the article - that is rejected as "to [sic] much explanation". Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways at the same time. Leaving off "many" or a number does not summarize the article's content correctly and therefore violates wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you have me confused with a different user. I never argued it was imprecise, I argued it was unsupported and not needed. Adding many does not summarize the body or the sources. You could argue that the exact number summarizes the body, but that is to much detail for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it POV? what sources contest the claim it has been used in many shootings? It does not matter if all RS say it is not, to be POV pushing it must go against an alternative POV from RS, one that says it has not been used in many mass shootings. What we have at this time is some RS saying "used in many mass shootings" some using variants of that worded different ways, and some RS that challenge a totally different claim. NPOV does not mean we give weight to all POV, only all significant ones (I.E. in RS, not held by us). Thus the POV argument is invalid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken on your understanding of POV. If you present a minority view, such as the many part, and then argue sources must be presented to disprove the minority does not make any sense. So we give weight to the significant view, which in this case is not the many line and don't promote fringe views. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate it is a minority view, you have not done so. By the way Fringe does not mean "not used in all sources", I bet most sources do not call the sea wet, that does not make the sea being wet a fringe view.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean besides how few sources use it or are you looking for a source that specifically calls it a minority view? PackMecEng (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean you have not shown that "so few sources use it" (and yes to be a fringe view it would have to go against stated majority consensus, not just not be said very often).Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay a quick search and here are two sources that show AR-15s not actually used in the majority of mass shootings Statista and BBC. Finding actual comparisons and stats does not seem to be super common but they clearly show many is an overstatement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that AR-15 style rifles are used in the majority of mass shootings. However, there is significant coverage of their role in the deadliest and most recent mass shootings: [28] The nation's mass-shooting problem seems to be getting worse. And the latest, most serious shootings all seem to have one new thing in common: the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle. [29] AR-15-style rifles have increasingly appeared in American mass shootings, including the deadliest high school shooting in the nation's modern history at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., Wednesday. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, "majority" does not mean "many".Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

When you use many to describe a minority incident it gives a misleading impression. Yes its roll in mass shootings has received a lot of coverage the past fews months. But that does not mean it has been used in many mass shootings. Perhaps used in recent high profile mass shootings, but that would date the article and not be right either. So at this point, few sources use many and statistics show it is not many, so I am not sure there is much left to discuss. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No statistics show it is not a majority (after all we do not know what many means, but it does not mean "majority" as there is a word for that). And you have not shown few sources use the term, which is also besides the point. Few sources describe the sea as wet, that does not mean it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

[30] [31] (to be fair so many), [32] (also so many), [33], [34] (*also so many). So how many sources do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So your first one qualifies many as the deadliest mass shootings not mass shootings in general. Second one just the headline with no qualification in the body, we don't use headlines as fact. Three seriously a video? Four supports it. Five is the same exact content as three. So lets count that up, you gave five sources and only one supports what you said. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Videos can be RS, do you think this one is not (and headline may not be good for facts, they can be used to show someone uses a term (as they are using it)? [35] (but no doubt you will say they only say in many of the worse mass shootings, so maybe change it to "many of the worst mass shootings" and address that concern of yours) [36], yep you are right, it needs to be many of the worst (by the way the video had been used by multiple small newspapers, want a few links?). [37]. So we have plenty of sources for "many of the worst mass shootings". And a few for "many mass shootings" (even more if we include all the newspapers that use that video).

Of course they do not all use the word many [38], of course commonly and many are virtually synonymous. Want more?Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the word simple because it misleads the reader as other editors here agree with. I did not attempt to do this stealthily as claimed. I simply did not think it quantified a explanation in my edit summary with the rest of that edit.

I would also like to point out here for all to see I have repeatedly ask editors to not make repeat unfounded accusations of my character with unjustified warnings on my talk page. Even after repeated request to not post on my talk page as inline with Wiki policy. Editor Waleswatcher[39], [40] and Dlthewave[41], [42], [43] fails to understand this policy. Editor Dlthewave [44] even encouraging to keep doing this as some how he feels he is a admin or simple someone who does not need to follow Wiki policy. -72bikers (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes videos can be RS, this one is not. With headlines, we do not use them for content especially when what you want to use from them are not in the body at all. As for the links this time, they are specific that this is a recent development and not longstanding of their use in mass shootings. Which again not for the lead but detailed in the body. Also the last link is again to the same video... It's a nice video but you don't have to cite it from three places as separate sources. But as to your offer, sure lets see some that actually have to do with how we are using it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is that video not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In this situation, unless I missed it, it does not support the claim of many. BTW this is the original link from the people that made the video. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a new suggestion. and you have not said how video this is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not a RS for the claim of many since it does not make that claim. Sorry if I was hard to understand in my previous post. PackMecEng (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Your right, it says common, which means practically the same inn this context, used a lot (and weapon of choice). But aa=s (I said we can uses these sources to say "many of the worst mass shootings", its what many of them do.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by it would be fine in the body for such things to expand on. Just that it is going to far into specifics for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In the end there is no need to use an imprecise word like "many", "majority", or "a number of". I've added a quote from a source that specifies exactly how prevalent their use is in recent mass shootings. It's concise, precise, and factual, so none of the above criticisms apply. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this WP:BOLD edit. WW restored it a few minutes later (along with a questionable edit to the lead of Colt AR-15). This is contentious but it's very hypocritical to get mad about a "stealth" edit and then think that such restorations are acceptable, especially since the section is under active discussion and many editors are clearly against such a change. Springee (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus on "many". Since "many" was the original state of the article before these changes and this discussion, per wiki policy we should simply restore that. However when I did so you reverted me. You advanced some arguments against "many", all of which I addressed with this recent edit (and it also addresses most or all of the other editor's objections, so no, it is not true that many editors argued against such a change). But you reverted that too, and falsely claimed on my talk page that there is a consensus to remove "many". As for stealth, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I object to are contentious changes that are snuck in with other changes and not mentioned in the edit summary.

Now, can you please try to be constructive? Maybe we can work together and improve the lede. What about the current edit don't you like? It certainly isn't vague or contextual, it's a clear, concise, and precise statement of fact (and reliably sourced). What is wrong with it? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently 5 editors are against and 3 (4 included the original editor) are for. We don't seem to have a strong policy argument in either direction and the inclusion of many is not that old. The article has been under constant revision since the material was added thus long term doesn't apply. You reverted two editors yet didn't start the talk discussion. Deciding that the best action was to expand the disputed material after being reverted is very problematic. Springee (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

5-4 is not a consensus. More importantly, per wiki policy these debates are not decided by raw number of editors - they are decided by reasoning and wiki policy. Which of the arguments you made against "many" apply to my latest edit, which was a good-faith attempt to address your concerns? Thanks in advance for your constructive response. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so let's grant you that your edit was a good faith attempt to come up with a solution. When it was reverted you should have moved to the talk page per BRD. Why instead did you restore the material? Where is the consensus of and kind for your new edit? You can at least make a reasonable claim that "many" is long standing (though I disagree since the article has been constantly under revision for the last two months and the material was not part of the article prior to that). But you can't claim your most recent edit had any consensus support. Springee (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, so you accept that you should not have reverted my "many" edit. Thanks for acknowledging that error on your part. Despite that, I tried to take your complaints in good faith and find a way to address them. I think my recent edit did so. But you reverted it for no reason other than lack of pre-consensus - despite acting that way yourself.

Now, can you please explain what you find objectionable about the current edit? I have asked you that many times now, with no response. After this point I will have to assume you actually have no substantive objections. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well at least you want to discuss it but you are failing to understand BRD. Why don't you start by explaining why you think this is a good compromise. Wp:Onus is on you. Springee (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I already explained that several times. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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) 15:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing? It seems you have your heels dug in. I explained multiple times, starting with the edit summary and in several other places. For instance, just above I you can see where I wrote: "In the end there is no need to use an imprecise word like "many", "majority", or "a number of". I've added a quote from a source that specifies exactly how prevalent their use is in recent mass shootings. It's concise, precise, and factual, so none of the above criticisms apply." You have never responded to any of that substance, despite reverting and commenting many times now on this edit. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

More specific wording

The discussion seems moot as the recent change [45] is an improvement and should have addressed the concerns about the vagueness of "many". K.e.coffman (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per K.e.coffman. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support If the objections is "we need more definite information" then this gives it. But I think this may need an RFC or admin intervention now. We cannot have too much information, but we need more information (are the objections raised to both version, and indeed any version).Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly to much detail for the lead. Should be left in the body. PackMecEng (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support This version addresses the "too vague" concerns and is still a single, concise sentence. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per PackMecEng. Springee (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. It's clear, concise, and precise statement of fact (and reliably sourced). Lead summarises the body, so perfectly due there. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In a effort to bring about a more neutral tone.-72bikers (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Move to body - Material in the lede should summarize what is presented in the body. The material added into the lede has no context from the body. Add a single sentence to lede once the material is in the body. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" , well given the shear number of RS that say this (in fact for the last few years at least the most publicity the response gets is its use in mass shootings) it is hard to see how this violates undue, as it is clearly a significant and very prominent viewpoint (undue says nothing about it being wrong).Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Remember, this is the lead, not the body. Also remember that weight goes with experts, not just the most media talking heads. Springee (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And experts have not contradicted this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remember, we don't have consensus for today's edit suggestions. Some argue the last stable version was the one with the word "many". I don't agree but at least a case can be made there. Let's not continue to change the article vs proposing changes here. If nothing else it will likely make things more cordial. Springee (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually a this time we do, a clear majority agree with the edit.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No we don't because we don't have input from other editors who have weighed in. We don't declare consensus because a few more editors on one side vs the other happen to be editing this morning. Especially when the discussion is contentious. Springee (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You will note I said "at this time".Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: just because you may disagree with the current consensus, it's still not a reason to engage in an edit war. You are at 3RR. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to wait for an equal number of editors from each "side" to weigh in as Springee implies. It may be that one perspective reflects the consensus and the otherdoes not. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually you should, especially since several of the editors were here just yesterday. Funny that the previous consensus against "many" wasn't a consensus but this one is. Springee (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Was there a clear consensus, I see almost a 50-50 split (with I think one vote more for "No".Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that there is a clear majority (for now). Debates like this are settled by reason, logic, and wiki policy, not pure numbers of editors supporting or opposed. There have been no valid arguments provided by those opposed. The only one is "too detailed for the lead". That's simply not true. Per wiki's manual of style:

[The lead section] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

That's precisely what this does. To contextualize this, explain why it is notable, and include this prominent controversy requires saying something about how often these rifles were used in mass shootings. (In any case, this debate started because one of the editors giving that reason attempted to remove the single word "many" because it was too vague, so this "reason" is quite ironic.) Waleswatcher (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that you want it settled by reason. This would be a great chance for you to start.

Here is a good reason, the lead summarizes the body. This information isn't in the body and based on the agreed content in the body this is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is "AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[53] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes", just not using those exact words.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to today's edits. A good rule of thumb is we shouldn't have to add sources to the lead to support content in the lead. The lead should be supported by the sources in the body. Springee (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Today's edits are very closely related to information already in the body. But since you feel they are not close enough (and I agree that this is a particularly effective way to see how prevalent the use of these riles in mass shootings really is), I will add this reference to the body. OK? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Today's edits required new sources and didn't summarize the body. If you want to add that material to the body get consensus first. Remember this is a DS article and we are now dealing with material that has been subject to debate very recently. Suggest changes here first. Springee (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any requirement to gain consensus before adding material to this article. We generally follow BRD. –dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no such requirement. In any case, Springee asks me to "Suggest changes here first". That is precisely what I just did. So, Springee, do you object to adding this source to the body of the article? If so, on what grounds? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

BRD is always a good idea. WW should have followed it this morning (as well as at the Cold AR-15 article). That said, when the part of the article in question is currently subject to discussion being bold is often being reckless. An inherent assumption in BRD is that the area isn't currently being discussed. That was true when WW made the change to the Colt AR-15 page earlier today. That wasn't true here. Springee (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I ask for a third time - does anyone (User:Springee?) object to my adding this material to the body? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be discussed here first. Springee (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Kafka would be proud... You are objecting to adding material in a discussion on that material, on the grounds that the material must be discussed before it can be added. Do you have any actual, fact- or reason-based objections? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• At this point with the votes above there is clearly no consensus for inclusion of the new material. It should be removed when possible. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Quite the contrary. I count five editors in favor (counting Mr rnddude, who wants a sentence added to the lead on this once it's also include in the body - I'll go ahead and do that when I can) versus three opposed. More importantly, the three opposed have made no argument at all apart from "too much detail" - which is easily fixed and in any case false, see any other page on wikipedia practically - and "neutral tone", which this is as a pure factual statement. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Do everyone a favor and propose the text here vs edit the article first. Let's get agreement then make the change. It's much better than kicking off a new edit war after you just participated in the one that got the article closed. The body text was previously subject to quite a bit of debate. If you intend to change that text you should ping the involved editors. If you are optimistic in your appraisal at best you have a weak, local consensus. Get wider agreement first. Springee (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, that is not how consensus works. My rnddude is correct that it is unsupported in the lead and should be in the body. That does not mean the purposed addition is what should be in the lead. So at this point, it is correct to label it no consensus in which case the previous text is restored. PackMecEng (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no, that is not what s/he wrote, which was "Add a single sentence to lede once the material is in the body". It is not true the material in the lead is unsupported in the body. The body says the same thing in slightly different words and in more detail. It lists all the mass shootings, for instance, rather than simply giving the number. Springee, hardly anything needs to change in the body for that reason. I'll just add the count and the reference, more or less as in the lead currently. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You do get that editors are outright telling you to propose your change here before making it to the article. Don't "just add" anything at this point as that will be disruptive editing. Get explicit consensus first. Springee (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it will not be disruptive, adding it will be standard wiki practice by BRC. Moreover the change is very minor - it's adding one new reliable source and a count of what is already in the section. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"adding it will be standard wiki practice by BRC" What does the Bathrobe Cabal have to do with this discussion? Springee (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They aim to enforce the 1RR. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the "many" version had been around in a stable article long enough to claim it represents a consensus view, but the proposed updates clearly did not have consensus. I've restored the "many" version. Springee (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, I did comment regarding the change on the talk page, see above. Per consensus there is no consensus to support the version we had over the last week which was frozen due to an article lock. Edit locks are not meant to represent an endorsement of any particular version of the article and don't count as a "stable consensus". Per WP:CONSENSUS if we don't have a consensus for a change the article goes back to the last stable version. We can argue if that should be to even before the "many" was added to the article but it was not the version we had for the last week (see all the objections and arguments above) Springee (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee is correct, we revert back to the last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this comment until now (this talk page is a mess, I only found it through edit history). Anyway the lead has been unchanged for about a week, so it will require consensus to change it. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

And to add to that, we have five editors in favor of this version (with something also added to the body in the case of Mr rnddude, which has been done) versus three against. More importantly, those opposed have not advanced any arguments beyond "too much detail" or "neutral tone". Neither argument holds any water. "Too much detail" - it's only a short sentence, longer only by a few words from the "many" version, but much more informative. "Neutral tone" - it's no different in that sense from "many", and it would violate NPOV not to mention these shootings in the lead. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with some Wiki policies, guidelines etc before making changes like this. You have three times failed to follow BRD, you failed to understand APPNOTE, you put together a RfC that was immediately closed for several reasons. The majority of the week was when the article was locked. When Oshwah froze the article it was to stop an edit was. It was not an enforcement of any particular state of the article. At this point I would ask that you revert your edit here [[46]]. Please note Slatersteven's comment above. Springee (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, we have consensus for this change - editors supported it by 5-3, and the arguments against were weak and never fleshed out. Furthermore, the article was stable for the last week. It is true that part of that time it was locked (after you reverted three times in 24 hours, if I recall correctly), but it remained stable for several days after that. It should remain as-is until we reach consensus for a change. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You've just reverted a change that restored the article to its state for the last week, and that is supported by the consensus here. You asked me to "take it to the talk page", but there is already a discussion here, in progress, to which you did not respond. Can you explain your actions, please? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: there's a rough consensus for inclusion here - what is the issue then? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't really care what exactly is said about the mass shootings, but I think it should be more than the plain "has been used in mass shootings", since that just is too vague and doesn't explain why it's even worth mentioning. I'd support "many" or the specific wording presented here. But maybe as a compromise we could do something like "a disproportionate number of deadly" mass shootings? It's accurate and supported by the sources, more specific than "many", and captures the essence of why AR-15 usage in mass shootings is notable (not because most mass shootings involve AR-15s, but because a surprisingly high number of the deadliest ones do). Plus it doesn't have the drawback of the exact numbers, which might be too detailed for the lead or could be seen as arbitrary, and worse, will probably have to be updated with some frequency, the way things are going. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder why it should be considered a disproportionate number of deadly mass shootings. Do those sources suggest what a proportionate number might be? Thewellman (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Men constitute about 50% of the US population, but over 90% of the prison population is men. Therefore, we say "men make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population". AR-15s make up maybe 5% of the guns owned in the US, but 60% of the 10 deadliest shootings were committed with AR-15s, thus they are used in a disproportionate number of the deadliest mass shootings. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Red Rock Canyon. "a disproportionate number of deadly mass shootings" is a good compromise, but it is subject to the same criticism that was leveled at "many" - it's not entirely precise. That was why I changed the wording to something more precise. Still, if we put your wording in the lead, and added the sentence about 6/10 to the body, that could work. What do you think? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest disproportionately high might be less ambiguous, although some statistical bias remains because of the cutoff criteria for most deadly mass shootings. Does an expanded list including events with fewer casualties (not necessarily all events, but perhaps twice as many of events with the highest casualty counts) illustrate a similarly dramatic disproportion? Thewellman (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What about noting that their use in mass shootings is disproportionally high as compared to their overall use in crime? Springee (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So adding more stuff to that part of the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, some editors objected that there was "too much detail" in the lead already. I don't agree, but saying things like "disproportionally high as compared to their overall use in crime" adds more detail, especially because it would require careful sourcing. Moreover, we don't actually have a source for that as far as I know.

Thewellman, "Does an expanded list including events with fewer casualties (not necessarily all events, but perhaps twice as many of events with the highest casualty counts) illustrate a similarly dramatic disproportion?" I'm not sure, but finding out might constitute OR. For now we have a source that looks at the 10 deadliest shootings, which is certainly a reasonable thing to do. You mentioned you'd be OK with the 6/10 wording. If you do support it, would you mind stating so unambiguously? That would give a clear 2-1 consensus and we could put this to bed (for now). Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of editors who've weighed in on this topic I would hope you would avoid acting until there is something more than a 2:1 "consensus". Springee (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your proposed specificity will sadly be outdated as crime use is still a ongoing issue. As a guns type is irrelevant as experts have stated these guns are not being chosen for any specific reason. Just what was on hand and available, as recently seen.

As seen a specific gun did not cause these crimes, but more likely (especially the schools) physical bulling and being ostracized as well as mental health issue is at the heart of this. That is what should be addressed instead of demonizing guns. All you are doing as experts have said "...it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.” is more likely hurting your goals instead of helping them.

Perhaps you should step back and really try to look at this from a analytical mind instead of a emotional one. -72bikers (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thewellman hasn't yet responded, but they had no objection to the wording. Given that we already have a clear majority in favor, not to mention much stronger arguments in favor of inclusion, I'm restoring the edit. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please forgive my delay in formulating a response. Like Springee, I have difficulty perceiving a majority vote among three individuals as consensus on an issue of interest to such a broad spectrum of editors. I remain concerned about emphasis on statistics without understanding the reasons for those statistical differences. My investigation of additional proportions was an attempt to assess reliability of sources on this subject rather than to publish this original research. My quick estimate (although perhaps not quick enough) indicates AR-15 style rifles were reportedly involved in seven of the fifteen highest death-toll United States mass shootings of the 21st century, and eight of the 21 with the highest death-toll if one reaches back to include earlier events when these rifles constituted a lower percentage of our civilian firearms inventory. In comparison, handguns were reportedly involved in twelve of the fifteen and eighteen of the 21. While these numbers tend to validate the disproportionately high assessment on the basis of total civilian firearms inventory, the presence of handguns might be perceived as more significant without more detailed attribution of injuries to weapons. I am less concerned about the presence of stale information, because history suggests this article will be rapidly updated to reflect recent events.

I suggest statistical comparison with total civilian firearms inventory may encourage inappropriate conclusions because of the high percentage of antique firearms in that inventory. Firearms may have a longer lifespan than many other machines, but collectors' pieces are fired infrequently. Just as the majority of highway travel occurs in modern automobiles, recently manufactured firearms are most likely to be actually used rather than merely preserved for display or as memorabilia of a deceased owner. Aside from the possibility of becoming nonfunctional through heavy use or inadequate maintenance, it is difficult to find ammunition suitable for many older firearms. A large percentage of older firearms are sequestered in collections while recently manufactured firearms are more frequently removed from their storage locations for use. Thewellman (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, you were warned that there wasn't a consensus and that such an edit would be disruptive. Did you count Thewolfchild's reversion of your edit as an endorsement? Springee (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, there is a consensus as per K.e.coffman above. It is you and other opposed editors that are being disruptive in preventing it from being implemented. If you have actual substantive concerns or policy-based objections to this, what are they? Waleswatcher (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

less specific wording

I have taken the liberty of using a word used by many of the sources (including the ones we already use). It is less detailed and conforms to what RS are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The version without "many" and without the specific yet arbitrary numbers was more neutral. I've rolled things back so we can get a consensus first. Springee (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That ship has sailed - you already forced a change without consensus, and admitted as much above. The current wording was put in place to accommodate your objections. You haven't raised a single valid objection to it - in fact, you've steadfastly refused to engage in any debate on it. Moreover, you have now reverted the page three times in a 24 hour period. Note that this page is under discretionary sanctions. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that ship hasn't sailed. Your inability to see the objections doesn't mean they aren't real. Unless you can show consensus we revert per policy. Springee (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: we revert per policy, "we" who? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Springee (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I ask you to obey policy and reinsert "Many" as that is what this is about, the removal of that word (without consensus).Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that "many" was a consensus but if you want to revert the article to "many" so we can then collaboratively come to a new consensus I will support that. Remember I'm at 3RR for the day so I won't be reverting today :) Springee (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say it was, I said removing it had no consensus (which per policy means it should not have been removed).Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, removing hadn't gained consensus but the counter argument was the article has been under near constant review/change since February. Thus changes such as the inclusion of many shouldn't be seen as some long term consensus. Either way, I think we can agree that we haven't shown consensus for the new changes (just a few hours is not enough time when we aren't dealing with a WP:SNOWBALL. Springee (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yet 50/50 was?Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been repeated controversial content inclusion with little to no discussion. But for some reason there needs to be such a big discussion on a simple word removal? Removing the word "many" did not change the statement but only gave it a more neutral tone, as the reference did not make this distinction -72bikers (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Read policy, you do not need to discus making an edit, you need to discus why you are reverting an revert. We discus when an edit is objected to. The removal was objected to, the inclusion was not (as far as I can tell) at the time.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is significant objection to the inclusion of that edit, how can you not see that? - ^theWOLFchild 17:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a fact and a reference to the Use in crime... section

Once the edit freeze is lifted I plan to add the fact that AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in all the most recent of the deadliest mass shootings in American history, along with appropriate reliable source(s), to the Crime... section in the body of the article.

This is already stated implicitly in that section because the shootings are listed there, but this will make explicit precisely how prevalent the use of AR-15s in these crimes is. That in turn may help clarify for readers why so many sources refer to it as the "weapon of choice for mass shootings" or similar wordings. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This section really needs to be cleaned up. It's no doubt that this needs to be included, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the content per se, except that it honestly just reads a bit awkwardly. It would be nice to include some sort of text that gives actual statistics. For example, "have been used in X out of Y mass shootings that involve more than N deaths in the United States including..." At very least, I would suggest breaking that down into two sentences, for example: "AR-15 variants have been used in several high-profile mass shootings in the United States. Among these are..." (emphasis showing suggested changes). I would do the edit myself but quite frankly I am terrified to edit this article given the politically charged nature of it. --nezZario (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not going to go down to two sentences, as it will be demanded we include at least a sentence on the following.

Use in recent mass shootings (and maybe , per your suggestion, a sentence on the fact they have high casualty rates).

Not used in the majority of crimes (and maybe , per your suggestion, a sentence on the statistics of actual victim numbers).

A sentence about notable examples of said mass shootings.

A sentance about the port Arthur shooting.

And this does removes some material.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with this material. I think Slatersteven's suggestion looks good. I do think we need to keep the lead limited but the body could be expanded. I would suggest it's better to stick with more encylopedic presentations of material. Often we get people trying to put the soundbite type quotes into the article without context. That I think we should avoid. Also we should be careful about how we note high casualty rates since we have other examples such as the VT shooting that had high casualties but used pistols. I would actually like to expand some of the discussion of the controversy (side A says, side B says) but perhaps that's general "assault weapons" vs AR-15 material. Springee (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee that discussing the controversy at somewhat greater length is a good idea. This section is arguably the most important in the entire article apart from the lead, so there is no reason to skimp on length. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

An underlying issue here is the relationship or contrast between prevalence and effectiveness. Could elimination of the weapon(s) have prevented the event, or would use of different weapons change the casualty count? (potentially removing the event from media attention as a record holder) Unless sources identify features of the specific AR-15 style firearm(s) significant to the event or events in comparison to other firearms, I suggest neutrality requires focusing the comparisons on mass murders rather than mass shootings. It might be different if the focus was on comparison to other types of firearms; but if the casualty count is more significant then the firearm features contributing to that count, it would seem appropriate to discuss these rifles in comparison to other mass murder weapons including bombs, vehicles, poisons, or arson. Considering the casualty counts of bombings and vehicle ramming attacks in addition to the mass shootings would help illustrate the significance of availability of the weapons selected in terms of background checks, waiting periods, site security precautions, and recognition of danger. Thewellman (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't omit information from articles just because things could have turned out differently in some alternate reality scenario. Neutrality requires us to follow the lead of reliable sources, and those sources include significant coverage of the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings specifically. They also cover the features (magazine size, semi-automatic, long range, availability, etc) that account for this prevalence. It doesn't matter that someone could have committed the same crime with a different weapon, the fact is that they chose an AR-15 style rifle in many of these recent mass shootings. If you can find prevalent RS coverage that compares these various methods of killing then we can consider making that comparison in this article, but otherwise it would be WP:SYN. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree it would be inappropriate to omit information -- in this case information about mass murders. Listing only mass shootings may give the impression they are the most significant mass murders. Quick recollection of recent events in the United States indicates the September 11 attacks aircraft ramming attacks killed 2996, the Oklahoma City bombing killed 168, possible arson at the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire killed 165, the Happy Land fire arson killed 87, and the Waco seige arson killed 76. Each of those events caused more fatalities than the 2017 Las Vegas shooting (58) or the Orlando nightclub shooting (49). Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 and Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 murders killed 44 and 43, and the UpStairs Lounge arson attack killed 32. Those events exceeded the casualty counts of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (28) or the Sutherland Springs church shooting (26). It isn't speculation to include these events. It merely puts the mass murder effectiveness of generic AR-15 style rifles into perspective by comparison with other weapons. Thewellman (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I could not agree more with the above comments that it puts it all in perspective. I also have a source state that in the U.S. rifles are only used in 3% of murders. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we had a well-attended RfC about including criminal use in this article. Wider community consensus was that "a section on AR-15 style rifle about its prevalence in mass shootings should be included in the article." –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My response to that RfC, specifying the importance of describing features significant to the weapon of choice, was counted as supporting the consensus. Thewellman (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And we have just such a section in the article. It has been in the article since at least the close of the RfC. Springee (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand the issue it is not the number of crimes they are used it, but the increased deadliness of them. RS are making the claim they make crimes deadlier, do RS dispute this claim? So over the last 10 years (the period when AR-15's have been used as a mass murder weapon) how many people have been murdered with them as opposed to any other weapon single type of weapon?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources focus on the deadliness of the shootings, not the number of shootings that the guns are used in. AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history (from the lede) sums it up. Some sources compare this to the prevalence of handguns in shootings, which we've included in the body. Shootings are generally treated as their own category of murder which is why there is no comparison to vehicle rammings, airplane hijackings, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 12:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I recognize the interest of other editors in explaining the relationship of this type of firearm to mass murder; but merely identifying them as AR-15 style may encourage erroneous conclusions because of the widely varying features of rifles fitting that description. While sources who do not know the difference between an Airbus, a Boeing, and a Tupolev might reliably report that the deadliest airline accidents involve multi-engine, swept-wing, jet airliners with large seating capacity, eliminating planes with two or more of those features would be unlikely to improve air safety. Thewellman (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, how do propose we address this? –dlthewave ☎ 19:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

While all shooters will obviously use a firearm, it may be less obvious that most shooters will use the most widely available firearms and ammunition. I suggest initially comparing the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings to their fraction of recent firearms sales. Finding a disproportionately higher representation in mass shootings might justify comparison with shooting events producing fewer casualties. I suggest the most likely advantage to mass murderers would be the capacity for sustained rapid fire. How many bullets were fired by each firearm during the event? The number of bullets fired per unit of time in a mass murder event is an indicator of rifle capability possibly based on one or more of these features:

• Semi-automatic fire - Not all AR-15 style rifles are designed for semi-automatic fire, and the casualty count of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting may have been increased by modifications to increase the rate of fire above that of most AR-15 style rifles. Any modifications from semi-automatic fire should be specified.
• Magazine capacity - AR-15 style rifles come equipped with various size magazines. What was the capacity of the magazine(s) used in the event?
• Interchangeable magazines - Some AR-15 style rifles have limited ability to change magazines. How many loaded magazines did the shooter(s) carry, and how many were changed during the event?

The number of casualties (either dead or wounded) per bullet fired is more likely proportional to skill of the shooter (and vulnerability of the victims,) although cartridge characteristics may be significant. AR-15 style rifles use various cartridges; and rifle cartridges are typically more powerful than handgun cartridges so single hits in similar locations are capable of inflicting more significant injuries. What cartridges were used during the event, and what type of bullets were used (for example expanding hunting bullets or military full metal jacket loads.) Any cartridges used in mass murder events in significantly higher percentages than that cartridge's share of rifle ammunition sales might be noted.

Handguns are more easily concealed while approaching potential victims; but as potential victims attempt to distance themselves from a shooter, shooters of normal strength and dexterity may find it easier to hit distant targets with rifles than with handguns. AR-15 style rifles come with various length shoulder stocks, barrels, and barrel attachments. Shorter rifles may be more easily concealed while approaching the crime scene, and may be easier to aim in confined locations. What was the overall length of the rifle(s) used by the shooter?

Firearms other than the AR-15 type come in a similar variety of lengths and are capable of semi-automatic fire, firing the same cartridges, and/or using interchangeable magazines (some with high capacity.) Indications that any one of these features was significant might warrant consideration of restricting that feature on other types of firearms; while there might be little benefit from restricting AR-15 style rifles without the significant features.

Although I wouldn't discourage investigation, I suggest these other features (sometimes considered cosmetic) are less widely significant. Silencers may delay victim recognition of danger, although supersonic bullets (including the majority fired from rifles) still produce a sonic boom and the sound of the rifle action and ejected case is louder than usually portrayed in entertainment films. Flash suppressors may aid concealment and protect shooters' night vision from darkened firing locations. Muzzle brakes may reduce recoil, while impairing shooters' hearing. Pistol grips are found on most firearms in one form or another. Thewellman (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That isn't a summary of the body and it's only in the lead because WW edit warred the comment into the lead. Per BRD that content should go until there is consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost correct, the lead can summarize the body, it does not have to copy it exactly. The only reason this is worded that way in the l;dead is because of objections that a more paraphrased text was not specific enough. We in fact say (in the body " AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States", thus the text in the lead says (more or less) the same thing. Now there may be an argument for a switch (we move this text to the lead and move the lead text to the body). But to say the lead does not reflect the body is a misrepresentation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, the body explicitly lists all the shootings referred to by the phrase in the lead - so the lead really is a summary of the body, and a rather concise and clear one at that. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, just over half the lead discusses controversy and use in crime, yet use in crime is only one of the eight sections that make up the article (and that doesn't include the yet to be added "legitimate use" section that this article desperately needs). Therefore the lead is waaay out balance in comparison to the article that it is supposed to describe and adjustments are neesed. - ^theWOLFchild 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It takes up one line, two if you add the line about the AWB (which many here did not think should be in the lead).Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"One line"...? It's the entire second paragraph, and there's only two paragraphs. - ^theWOLFchild 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States according to the New York Times, and been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association."

Nope not really about the controversy or its use in crime. Rather its overall public image.

"AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history."

Yep about the controversy and its use in crime.

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban restricted the Colt AR-15 and derivatives from 1994-2004, although it did not affect rifles with fewer features."

Not about that controversy or its use in crime, and not included by those who want to include reference to crime. I have in fact susgested we could remove this.

"there are an estimated 10-12 million in circulation in the United States."

Not about use in crime or any controversy.

What we have is one line about it's use in crime and a lot of material that really have nothing to say about that issue, but is on the same paragraph. In fact over half this paragraph is (in effect) saying how popular it is. So I am now going to suggest we separate out the crime and prevention matter from, the material about it's popularity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

1) "...one of the most vilified rifles" - Yup, that really is about the controversy surrounding this rifle.

2) Glad you agree.

3) There is "no controversy" surrounding the FAWB? The inclusion of the "Colt AR-15 yadda yadda yadda..." in it? It's label as an "assault-"anything? It's affect on sales? It's affect on design and "features"...? Really? Like I said, there are only 2 paragraphs. One to summarize one section about a minor subject (6 out of 12 million used criminially) and the other paragraph to summarize the 8 other sections, all with more significant content, (and still nothing about 'legitimate use' yet...). You think that makes for a balanced lead? - ^theWOLFchild 00:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And we are not talking about controversy, but the line about mass shootings (again). That is why I say only one line is about that subject, rather then wider issues (and if the paragraph is too long how about removing material about subjects that are not even in the body, like the AWB?). And we do not say 6 out of 12 million used criminally, if that is what we mean, we should say it, what we say is 12 million sold, and nothing else.

But there is your clue as to why this section is so long, if we removed the AWB (nothing to do with its use in mass shootings) that would make it shorter. If we combine the lines about its use in criminal acts, we might be able to lost another line. So do you agree we should remove the reference to the AWB?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree we should remove the reference to the AWB. It's a crucial piece of information about this class of rifles. It should be added to the body, either to the Criminal Use section or to another. Are there any objections to adding it to the body? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What about those who think that the lead is too long?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with that either. Wiki style is that the lead should not exceed four paragraphs. This one is only two, and pretty short and simple paragraphs at that. There's no reason to try to shorten it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What might help address User:Thewolfchild's concerns is lengthening the lead by including a brief summary of the rest of the article (modularity, comparison to military versions, etc.). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what is an AR-15 "type" ???

The article needs to define what the topic is a bit better. Is this about weapons that call themselves AR15, or that are called that by others, or that have features from or what ??? There is some mention of them occurring after patents run out -- so can someone specify what features were definitive for an AR-15 that now copied make a rifle of the same 'type'  ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Basically, any rifle based on the the AR-15 design, also known as AR-15 pattern. Typically, regardless of manufacturer, and with few exceptions, almost any upper is compatible with any lower, use the same type mags, lower parts kit, bolt carrier group, stock & buffer tube, barrel mount, etc., etc.... all the parts and components that are common to this 'pattern', 'design' or 'style' (which is one of the main reasons for it's popularity). Conversely, if you take, say... the SIG MCX, which looks similar to the AR-15 (and has been confused for it), but has a different design and is not at all compatible with the AR-15. Hope this helps a bit. You're right, perhaps the article could make this a little clearer for those not at all familiar with the AR-15. - ^theWOLFchild 03:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Was just about to say AR-15 pattern rifle when you posted. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It is kind of a tough term to nail down. Especially since they can be several calibers and some variation of mechanism. I suppose I'll know it when I see it will not suffice? The most in policy way would be if RS describe that specific model as a AR style rifle. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that: the multiple calibers that are available for this "platform" (ah, another descriptor), and the cross-compatibility of some calibers with the same rifle, (specifically the lower, which is the serialized, registered part) with only minor changes, had also contributed to it's popularity. It was initially designed based on the .223 caliber (5.56x45mm NATO for the milspec versions), though that design was based off an earlier .308 caliber/7.62x51mm NATO version. The AR-15 is now available in an assortment of calibers; 9mm & .45ACP pistol caliber carbines (with Glock mags - big bonus), 7.62x39mm, .300 Blackout, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowolf... to name a few. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 03:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that is the part I was most curious on how we would nail that down. I personally have a .22 LR and 5.56 version, my dad has a 5.56 and .300 blackout. Various manufactures between with mine even being a 5.56 80% lower at birth. PackMecEng (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops! That's right, there is also the rimfires... .22LR, .17HMR and apparently .22WMR. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 03:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild - if you've got a cite for that, please insert it into the article. As it is, the article seems like it's a vague pejorative replacement for the rebuked usage of 'assault rifle'; or as referring to the 'look' such as a metal frame+pistol grip+ triangular front sight. Specific features and inter-changeable parts would make sense with the mentions of the patents expiring, and the commonality across makers for the parts and accessories would make flexibility and cost sense of the popularity. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The 5.56 and .300 blackout are a good example of how easy it is to change caliber, being you only have to change the barrel and all else is compatible. It even has the ability to convert from direct impingement to short-stroke gas piston. It's versatility is definitely its claim to fame. Also perhaps the reason why it's a little tricky to nail down -72bikers (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on "Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle"?

Here. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)