Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:09, 15 November 2013

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about gun control or the Federal Assault Weapons ban. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about gun control or the Federal Assault Weapons ban at the Reference desk.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Photos?

Is there in existence, anywhere, a photo of the FAWB being signed into law? I think it would make a nice set of "bookends" if we could have a photo of it being signed into law near the beginning of the article, and then perhaps something similar at the end of the article when it sunsetted. In order to keep NPOV balance perhaps we could have it's supporters in the first one, signing it in, and then at the end perhaps opponents of the ban signing it off, or giving a speech, or what-have-you. (I don't know if there was ever anything done when it sunsetted, but it seems there must have been). --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely photos out there of the signing. I think that could be added to the article, and wouldn't be POV. I don't know of any specific events that marked the end of the law. I'm not sure that having a second photo to 'balance out' the first could be done in an NPOV way. Too many ways to interpret it. But it was definitely a Kodak moment at the White House when Clinton signed it. And a photo of something other than a gun would be a nice addition to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea of the bookends is to have a photo at the beginning depicting "the beginning" of the ban, and a photo at the end representing the "end" of the ban. And yes, I think photo's of something besides guns will be a net positive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/PPP-PHOTOS-1994-book2/PPP-PHOTOS-1994-book2-folio-D/content-detail.html Also seems like it should be public domain as a govt photo. Unfortunately pretty low resolution. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Geez, that's right. I was mixing up the AWB signing with the Brady Bill signing. The latter was a Kodak moment; the former, not so much. Anastrophe (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

could also maybe pull a still from here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOY0xSpt6IA and the video itself could be included as an external link Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how many times he signed it, and how many different pens he used! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Another photo, shortly after the signing. This one features Biden, so may be more symbolic as a bookend since he is involved in the topic again (buy a shotgun) http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/07/joe-biden-over-the-years/000306-003971.html Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets try one and see if it looks good. We can always take it down if we don't like it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this idea? I thought it was a good one, but I've never seen a picture added. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed second quote from VPC under Compliance

It's from a press release, it says essentially the same thing as the quote preceding it. It gives undue weight to the pro-control side, seemingly suggesting that because a law was poorly written, it was "wrong" for firearm manufacturers to comply with said law. Definitely WP:UNDUE. Anastrophe (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Press releases make poor citations. I don't agree that it gave undue weight to the pro-control side, but I think it's removal improves the article anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed Memoli ref from criteria

The reference is to http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/19/news/la-pn-assault-weapons-ban-likely-dropped-20130319 , which is entirely about the 2013 proposed AWB, not the 1994 AWB. Not reliable for the latter. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaced with valid reference to 1994 AWB from smartgunlaws.org pro-control site, for balance. Anastrophe (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As my last three edits affect POV balance, I'm stopping here to provide an opportunity for discussion, reversion, aversion, inversion, perversion, obversion, contempt, applause, disdain, plaudits, ennui, kudos, schadenfreude, pedestrian ratiocination, or even an (expected) ghostly silence of disinterest. Anastrophe (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No silence for you! Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to comment about your second edit, but then you fixed it with the third edit, cancelling out my objection. It's a wash. No complaint here.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sugarmann quote

The following quote (with bolloxed edit kruft retained) has been hidden in the editable article for quite a while. I've removed it and am posting here. Sugarmann's own words are quite damning to the pro-control argument - that they're willing to prey upon and foster people's ignorance about weapons to propagandize their cause. For that reason, I don't think it's appropriate to the article, but apparently someone in the past did. It should either be discussed or tossed, but what it shouldn't be is left in the article as a hidden fragment. Here it is (I've posted it verbatim, neutralizing the hiding tags)-

BEGIN

<!!-- This section is linked from [[Feder -->

<!!-- How this opinion helps define the current or functional legal term of AWB?: The term "assault weapon", as used in the context of civilian rifles, has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" who wrote:

-->

END

What a mess, I never noticed it. If you want to hear opinion from someone who is pro-control, I actually have no problem with the quote as long as it is properly cited and verifiably true. My concern is more along WP:BLP lines. I would want to know that he actually wrote that. I also don't think it's particularly damning to any side of the issue, as Josh Sugarmann is on the pro-control side himself. It does speak to the cosmetic issue, however, and I think that is important, so I am neutral on having it in the article. It should certainly not be re-introduced into the article unless it's fixed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I found the complete quote on the Josh_Sugarmann article, in better context, and cited well. I don't see any reason that it cannot be in this article as well, unless there is a redundancy concern. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that at best, it would be appropriate to an 'origins' or 'history' section - which was in the early stages of development when the Big Reversion occurred. Outside of that - It predates the ban by six years, so I don't think it's specific enough to the ban itself to be probative.. Anastrophe (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

References

1. "Assault Weapons & Accessories". Violence Policy Center. Retrieved 2005-02-26. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with public confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
2. Sugarmann, Josh (1988). Assault Weapons and Accessories in America. Washington, D.C.: Firearms Policy Project of the Violence Policy Center. ISBN 978-0-927291-00-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Title should be lowercase per WP:TITLE, WP:LOWERCASE and WP:NCCAPS

The title of this article is contrary to the WP:TITLE policy under WP:LOWERCASE, which says the words in article titles should not be capitalized unless they would be in running text. Per the WP:NCCAPS guideline, ignoring this standard reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages's credibility. Of the 30+ sources cited in the article none capitalizes "federal assault weapons ban" in running text, though two use "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994."

In addition to the current sources, here are 10 other examples - both pro-gun and gun-control - that do not use "federal assault weapons ban" in caps in running text.

• Associated Press
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
• Senator Dianne Feinstein's official website
• Fox News
• Los Angeles Times
• NRA Institute for Legislative Action
• The New York Times
• U.S. Government Printing Office
• USA Today
• The Wall Street Journal

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are available arguments in both directions. For example, if it is a RW title, wp:title says it should be capitalized. What I am baffled by is why this is such a big deal. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What is an RW title? (I have a guess, but don't want to assume.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC) OK. I went back through the discussion started on this back in August. You (North) said that if we took up the question again, we should start by learning whether the title exists as a title in the real world. I have looked through the original law and the proposed bills that would have renewed or reauthorized the ban. The official, short title for the LAW (AWB 1994) was "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act." (The terms "assault weapons ban" and "federal assault weapons ban" do not appear in the law.) The BILL short titles were "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003," "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005," "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007," and "Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008." Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

On why it's a big deal, maybe this would help. Think about how laypeople interchange the terms "clip" and "magazine." And when they're talking to other laypeople, that's probably no big deal. They just mean a thing that holds bullets. But to some, that distinction is important and to interchange them indicates a certain level of ignorance on the part of the speaker. With good writers and editors, capitalizing when you should not (or not capitalizing when you should) are the same as comparing clips and magazines. Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please step away from the dead horse and lay the stick down on the ground. You have already brought this up multiple times. It has been discussed round and round. You have even taken this issue to two other notice boards. There is no consensus to change the title. PLEASE STOP. Continuing to re-introduce this topic is disruptive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It was last discussed on this page nearly two months ago, and closed mid-discussion. After that, I posted it on one notice board (though it was briefly mentioned in a separate notice). After searching, I finally found the WP essay that best describes my experience since I first started contributing to this article in August: POV railroading. "The process of POV railroading includes (1) isolating the opponent, (2) intimidating and confusing the opponent, (3) frustrating and baiting the opponent, and (4) creating a narrative that the opponent is violating policy, (5) regardless of actual behavior." That's why I reached out to you for help.

Since you weren't active here before I asked for help, would you at least stand back and see how the guys handle my return? I don't think a half-dozen more-experienced editors are defenseless against me. Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean how the other editors are going to handle the numerous accusations integrated into your last post? North8000 (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CRUSH, and I am growing very very tired of it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, North. My reply was to Sue. I posted "please stop" statements to her talk page on Sept. 1, Sept. 6, and Sept. 17. She moved the last two all three back to my talk page and asked me to not post to her talk page anymore.

Did you notice that I did respond to your comments on the subject of this section? I'd really appreciate the opportunity to get back on topic. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Although Sue's initial comment was correct, it was also needlessly rude and anger baiting. KonveyorBelt 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I was attempting to express my frustration (and hopefully the frustration of other editors here) with a troublesome editor that picks up exactly where she left off after narrowly escaping a topic ban for this exact behavior. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

effect on crime 45%

The 45% number is directly from the source, so that is in its favor, but it is a self published, biased source, which argues against it. Further, the actual study to which the brady group refers, was commissioned BY the brady group, and is The 45% is not a mathematical error, although there is certainly a (possible) logic error on the part of the brady group. 3.1% is indeed 45% ((5.7-3.1)/5.7 = 45) but this actually tells you nothing about the effect of the law on criminal use. If the assault weapon use amount stayed exactly the same, but handgun use increased, this number could also be true. Also any systematic changes in the way the ATF performed or selected investigations could have the same effect. That the raw numbers used to generate these % is not in the brady publication is perhaps a sign of this type of issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Besides the numbers game of making a 1.5% change look like 45% there is even a more fundamental problem. That's like saying that "since we outlawed Prius automobiles, there have been fewer accidents involving Prius automobiles." It says nothing while appearing to say something. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys I see it now. The first thing I did was open my calculator and I couldn't make the numbers work. I'm a bit of a fan of the Brady Center, so I think I'll just stay neutral on this one. LOL --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The study was prepared by the Brady Center using ATF records available to the public and analyzed by Crime Gun Solutions. The chief CGS analyst was Gerald Nunziato, who was special agent in charge of the ATF’s National Tracing Center for eight years. A math error (which is not demonstrated here) is easy to prove; a logic error is harder. This study looked at assault weapons named in the ban and "copycats" made to get around the ban. As a percentage of crime-guns traced, there was a decrease. A decrease of 2.6 points (from 5.7% to 3.1%) is significant when looking at 1.4 million crime-gun traces. I think Cartermassey's addition to the article should be restored. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit, crime traces have less to do with murder and more to do with theft and possession violations.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is no math error, but the percentage values are worthless to establish the effectiveness or not of the legislation. There are many many different scenarios which are consistent with these numbers, including a LARGER amount of assault weapon traces combined with an even larger amount of handgun traces. which would be completely counter to the implications from Brady. They easily could have provided the raw numbers, but did not. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Background section

I am proposing the following Background section for the beginning of the article. I chose "Background" as the section title based on the first section in the National Firearms Act article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I will expand the "opposed" content tomorrow, so if you have any suggestions... Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Background (proposed)

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - also called the "crime bill."

In January 1989, 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five of the children died. Two months later, President George H.W. Bush banned the import of semiautomatic rifles pending a review of their use. Lawmen said they were often outgunned, and doctors and nurses in big cities reported increases in deaths and injuries from semiautomatic weapons. In May 1989, California became the first state in U.S. to ban the sale of assault weapons. In July, the Bush administration declared the the temporary import ban to be permanent on 43 of the 50 models reviewed. The year 1989 also marked the beginning of efforts to create a federal assault weapons ban.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In May 1994, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed of the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that semi-automatic weapons were used in only 1 percent of crimes, but 2 million times a year by citizens for self defense.

In January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. Later, the VPC supported replacing the ban with a tougher law, saying that the firearms industry had evaded the ban and that simply renewing it would not address the danger assault weapons pose to public safety.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like cherrypicked history, not about the topic, and selected to support the ban. The one exception is is the short NRA item, and it as a significant error it it. The sources was correct but the text is the above is not) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the error? I don't see what you're talking about. The McIntyre/NRA source URL is http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-11-18/news/9311180157_1_brady-bill-ban-assault-weapons-violent-crime and the quotes are:

"These weapons are used in only 1 percent of all crimes," McIntyre said. "All this legislation will do is keep these weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens."

McIntyre contended that most owners of semiautomatic weapons use them for purposes of "self defense. About 2 million times a year they are used by citizens to protect themselves."

Also, the article currently has nothing about the discussions ongoing in the U.S. at the time the ban was written, or who it was written by. Adding a brief section on that background info puts the law in context. As I said yesterday, I am still looking for "opposed" positions written in larger metro newspapers at the time (or equally reliable, authoritative sources of verifiable accuracy), if you'd like to suggest some. Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The error is saying that the 1% is for semi-automatic. The article did not say that and it is implausible, given that semi-automatic is an immensely common everyday feature (maybe 1/2 of all firearms). North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Since we have some feedback and a new source from StarryGrandma, I am going to pull the draft of this section back into my user space and work on it for a while. I would like to include the "opposed" material from this source, but since I can't seem to paraphrase it correctly, would you take a go at it? The source is a Nov. 1993 story in the Chicago Tribune and its link is: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-11-18/news/9311180157_1_brady-bill-ban-assault-weapons-violent-crime. I've given the quotes from McIntyre above. Or if you have another source, that would be great. If you can't help, I'll keep trying. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the whole idea is a bad idea. Misplaced Pages editors selecting what they think is relevant to the history would be a recipe for turning this relatively straightforward article on a law into a dramafest debate, and about a section that is not even about the law. And I think that Lightbreater's selection has a POV tilt. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like more of the same old stuff per WP:CRUSH --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer review again?

I see that lightbreather has brought the article up for a peer review, which is a good idea, but isn't the article ALREADY being/been peer reviewed? Read: Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_5#ANI_notice Thanks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Answers (from me and Drmies) are in the review request. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We now have an updated and formal peer review, stating "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view." Hopefully, this will put some of that particular issue to rest, and we can stop dredging up old issues, and focus on some of the excellent suggestions made by the reviewer. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I had already started on a origins/background section, I am going to go back and work on it using the sources I'd found, plus the excellent one StarryGrandma provided (the ncjrs.gov PDF of the March 1999 NIJ Research in Brief). Thanks again a million times, StarryG! Lightbreather (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes to lead per peer review

Please note I've made some changes to the lead per the recent, excellent peer review. To do so required changing language a little, which actually improved its accuracy and clarity.

BEFORE: The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms. The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

AFTER: The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The restrictions only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the ban's enactment; possession and transfer of weapons and magazines legally owned before enactment was not restricted. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe keeps changing my good-faith efforts to improve the article, without starting a discussion - which I understand to be the currently accepted protocol on this article. He seems to want the lead to emphasize the ban portion of the law, but the ban was just that... a portion of the law. Please compare before/after above to what Anastrophe has changed it to:

The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The United States law banned the manufacture and transfer of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the law's enactment; possession and transfer of weapons and magazines legally owned before enactment was not restricted. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

Please see page 201 of the law itself:

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The ban was indeed a portion of a law - the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ban itself, which is what this article is about, was exactly that, a ban on weapons, in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. Attempting to de-emphasize what this article actually is about is rather bizarre. It was a ban on certain weapons, that's why it called, you know, a 'ban'. Details about the fact that the weapons weren't banned for law enforcement and other agencies is not terribly notable (they are only notable in the case where the lawmakers forget to add exceptions, as they did in the NY ban earlier this year), nor is it covered in depth in the body of the article, thus it is WP:UNDUE in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, "which actually improved its accuracy and clarity." is incorrect - it reduced clarity and accuracy by contending that possession was banned, which it was not. Anastrophe (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I did *not* try to de-emphasize anything. I was correcting the lead to show that the "assault weapons ban" wasn't just about assault weapons and didn't just flat-out ban them. But I don't want to argue about my intentions or yours... I want to improve the lead. So, first question: Is this article about the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act? Yes or no. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I do not respond well at all to being told that I am limited in how I may answer a question on the discussion page. Please rephrase your question civilly. You are not my mother. Anastrophe (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't read something into my question that isn't there. Also, please avoid "you" statements. I am trying to keep this on content. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we please just drop the repeated calls to 'avoid "you"'? It's annoying. When a particular editor's conduct or edits are in question, it is not ad hominem to refer to them as 'you' (or he or she or it). Above, you wrote "He seems to want the lead to emphasize " - good for the goose but not for the gander? I'm talking about content too. Anastrophe (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"He seems to" admits an impression and uncertainty, "Attempting to de-emphasize" does not. Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which should be self-evident. 'FAWB' is analagous to 'PSRFUPA'. It was a ban on certain types of firearms and magazines. Is a 'restriction' a 'ban'? Yes, self-evident by this law, its common name, and the Reasonable Person test. I've no desire to be sucked into a vortex of semantics which will only serve to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Anastrophe (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which is commonly called the assault weapons ban but is not just about banning assault weapons. Just as some newspaper readers only go so far as to read the headline and the first paragraph or two of a story, some Misplaced Pages readers only read the lead of a WP article. If the article is about the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which it is, then we could do a much better job of summarizing the law in the lead. Did it ban the manufacture of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines for civilian use? Yes. Is that a clear and accurate summary of the law? Only for one part of the law - so the answer is, no.

A ban is a restriction, but a restriction is not a ban. A ban is a prohibition. There are distinctions - especially important in an article about a law. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So we are going to get sucked into a vortex of semantics. The lede only needs one change: to include certain kinds of magazines as part of the ban. It already made clear that existing weapons in civilian hands were not banned. Your edits confused matters through a poor construct that was suggestive that 'possession' was also banned, by lumping it in with other points - ironically, making it deviate even further from the very first item the peer review suggested be improved. The inclusion of the law enforcement exception is not notable at all. So, we have an edit that 1) presented the summary inaccurately and unclearly, 2) added details that are not notable either to the lede or the body, 3) subsituted the word "restrict" for the word "ban", contrary to any reasonable test of the nomenclature (the wording of the law - a primary source - is not probative to what vast numbers of third party sources clearly understand to be a ban). The changes are a step backwards in clarity, with the exception of the inclusion that certain magazines were banned as well. I repeat that I believe it should be reverted back to yesterday's version, with the one change being inclusion of magazines.Anastrophe (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Disagree. 2) Disagree. 3) Untrue, misrepresentation. Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"He seems to want the lead to emphasize" - how about we refrain from engaging in personalized speculations about motives, okay? The changes you made did not improve the clarity of the lede at all. The lede should speak directly to the subject of the article. A Reasonable Person understands that this article about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is about a ban on certain types of firearms (I've no objection to the inclusion that it banned certain types of magazines as well). De-emphasizing that reduces accuracy and clarity. Certain weapons were banned - no Reasonable Person can contradict that. Let's keep the article focused on exactly what the article is about, rather than watering it down and obfuscating the meaning with irrelevancies (to the lede) about the entirely unnotable fact that law enforcement wasn't prohibited from these weapons. Certain firearms and magazine were banned from inception of the law from manufacture and transfer. Previously owned weapons were not banned from possession, a glaring inaccuracy introduced by the earlier edit. Slow down. Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Slow down"? We have an excellent peer review that made some good points. I studied that. I studied the lead. I made a few changes. I didn't do anything hasty. Please don't command. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I propose that the lede be restored to where it was yesterday. I have no objection to inclusion of the fact that certain magazines and certain named models were also banned. The other proposed changes are WP:UNDUE for unnotable facts (law enforcement exception). Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I made a few changes (above), which you reverted (I assumed in good faith because your edit summary about why you'd reverted it was inaccurate). I restored my changes again, clarifying the misunderstanding. You reverted a second time (with an uncivil edit summary). I rewrote my few changes as a good-faith attempt to compromise.

You reverted a third time with an edit summary that said there were "everal inaccuracies."

I propose that we restore my last proposal - which had no inaccuracies. Further, the fact that the government and law-enforcement were exempt from the ban might be "unnotable" for its own article, but it was a provision of the law that's worth stating here (not assuming it's understood) without mentioning again. The net difference? Two sentences and 30 words.

The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). It allowed manufacture for and transfer to U.S. and state agencies and to legally qualified active and retired law-enforcement agents, but it prohibited civilian possession and transfer of most such weapons and magazines. Exceptions were provided, including Weapons and magazines legally owned before the law was enacted were not banned.

The ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. It expired on September 13, 2004, per a 10-year sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not within our bailiwick as editors to interpret this law. The edits editor Lightbreather has provided are the result of editor interpretation of the wording of the law - per the section reproduced above as rationale for the edits - rather than generated by contextual reference to Reliable Sources. As such, it is a priori inappropriate, since it is unsourced, and unreferenced elsewhere in the article. It needs to be struck until it is reworded for better clarity, as the predominant understanding in reliable sources is not that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was not a ban but instead just some restrictions, nor that it banned possession (if we are to delve into interpretation of the legal text, purely as an exercise, it's worth pointing out that in my interpretation those weapons that were banned for manufacture after the date of the law could not therefore be transferred or possessed since they could not be created, thus everything beyond 'manufacture' in the first line of the law is superfluous. The same weapons that were banned could legally be transferred and possessed if they existed prior to the law. The wording proferred muddies the 'possession' distinction, where the former wording does not. Thus, why we as editors do not perform our own original research when editing information for inclusion in the encyclopedia.) Anastrophe (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather please stop edit warring. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell please stop with the WP:PA. I made good-faith edits based on a peer review, which my edits/summaries for the past 24-hours clearly shows six times: here, here, here, here, here, and here. When it was clear that Anastrophe disagreed with them, I started this discussion. Would you please strike/delete your comments? They misrepresent my edits. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to call edit warring edit warring, which your 6 diffs show quite clearly. (If anastrophe is on the other side of all 6 diffs, then that accusation probably applies to him as well however). This is a clear violation of WP:3RR. The accusation of edit warring is of course entirely separate from if your edits were appropriate or not. Even if you are 100% correct in your edits, it is still a violation to edit war them in. (As my 1 entry on my block log shows) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The edits don't constitute vandalism, but they do constitute behavior that is problematic considering the recent past history. Anastrophe (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is vandalism to repeatedly and knowingly, break links, wipe talk pages, and place false information into a Misplaced Pages article. Lightbreather has done all of these things --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Editor LB says the broken links and talk page issues were mistakes; based on the general history of good faith editing (regardless of the degree to which those edits are tendentious or not supported by sources), i don't think they rise to the level of true vandalism, and a standard reading of the policy tends to support that. But I don't have a dog in this fight, so again - I agree that we disagree. Anastrophe (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am reviewing old discussions before they get archived, and I am asking Sue Rangell to please apologize for and strike those last two comments. If they get archived they will be floating around Misplaced Pages forever, and they are - and this is something I hate to say - lies. If you apologize for and strike them, I will strike this request. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is harassment to repeatedly and intentionally target a specific person with threats and intimidation to undermine or frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. Sue_Rangell has done all of these things. Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the spirited debate with Lightbreather will continue regarding their content direction content / changes. But IMHO we should try to mello this out a bit and have some fun while we;re doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: peer review as it relates to lead

There are at least two observations in the recent peer review that are relevant to the lead.

"I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it.... Like many articles on laws this one need more organization and needs more information about the provisions of the law....

" The lead paragraph needs to mention that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not ban owning assault weapons in the United States. Not all readers will be familiar with US policies on gun control."

Based on these and on the WP:LEAD guidelines, I am going to reorganize the lead and add more information. Please give me some time. Lightbreather (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, if you make changes that are controversial without discussing them here first, you will probably be facing another round at ANI. You are picking up exactly where you left off, and that is *NOT* ok. Please read WP:CRUSH. Single-purpose POV accounts are frowned upon on Misplaced Pages, your actions are going well beyond WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and are well into WP:DISRUPT. If you don't like hearing this, I am sorry, ask your mentor. She will tell you the same thing. STOP THIS NOW. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• A quick perusal of this and other talk pages shows that Lightbreather's comments and edits are not without controversy, to put it mildly, and that's not to anyone's benefit. I don't know what the evidence is for edit warring, for instance, and I don't wish to look for it right now, but that's a blockable offense as well, of course--WP:ANEW is the appropriate venue. But given the SPI SPA charge it may well be that a topic ban is to be requested. Lightbreather, I don't say this lightly and by saying it I am not saying there's truth to the accusations, but it seems to me that that is where this is headed. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies I also find her actions disruptive, although I think the vandalism charge from the previous section is a bit overly-strong. Regarding SPI, I don't see anyone making such a charge, although an SPA is often correlated with an SPI, nobody has made that accusation (unless I am missing it). I think the main problem is her repeated headstrong attititude of "Im going to charge in here and right the wrongs" rather than starting smaller and proposing smaller level changes - to that end, I think the previous section's actions were appropriate, although it is clear that there is consensus against the change - but that seems like a normal resolution of BRD. In this section rather than saying "Im going to fix it" I think a more surgical "What do you think of this specific change to this specific sentence" methodology would be appropriate, in light of the previous discussions regarding that editor's MO. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin. You have explained things for me in the past, so could you tell me: I know what SPA is, but what is SPI? Also, is there a way to stop one editor who is bullying another? Maybe like a WP version of a restraining order? I mean, if an editor is attacking and you (impersonal) post "please stop" requests on that editor's talk page, and then that editor moves the requests back to your own talk page - how can you effectively address that behavior? I have made many good edits here, neutral and "POV" for both sides, but to read the discussions, one might think (mistakenly) that my edits are only extremely pro-control (which they aren't). Lightbreather (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, I never said I was going to "fix" the lead. I said I was going to reorganize it based on two peer-review comments that apply. Normally, that wouldn't need to be corrected, but it's an important distinction right now because my edits are under scrutiny. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I will explain some of the policies to you, but be very wary of WP:BOOMERANG as i think most of the complaints you would be able to make would end poorly for you. WP:SPA is a single purpose account, one that edits exclusively (or mostly) on one subject. That pretty obviously applies to you. SPI means WP:SOCK where the investigation into socking is WP:SPI. SPA's are often Socks, but I don't believe anyone is accusing you of this at this time. (Either Drmies was mistaken, or accidentally typed SPI instead of SPA) Regarding restraining order, there is WP:IBAN, but that would probably restrict you just as much as the hypothetical other, and as there is generally consensus against most of your changes here, I don't see that it would really help you much. The moving of comments skirts WP:TPO, and WP:CIVIL which if the violations are egregious enough could result in blocking, but I don't know enough about the particular circumstance to say what I think would happen. (Again, beware the boomerang). There is also WP:NOBAN which would apply to your specific talk page request, but generally does not apply to posting of warnings or notices. I do not know what type of posts you were objecting to, so can't really comment as to if they would fall into the exceptions or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Gaijin. As I've said before, I am not an SPA, and I'm not an SPI either. I understand about the boomerang thing, too. All of these accusations (and I don't mean you) are literally making me sick. I'm actually crying right now, because I am a very good, trained editor, and I feel my name on Misplaced Pages is cruelly and unnecessarily sullied (and again, I don't mean by you), and I don't know that I can ever recover my reputation here. I graduated cum laude with a degree in journalism from my university, and editing was my best subject. Again, I feel like the only options I'm offered by (most of) the editors on this page is stop editing (unless it's something gnome-like - the URLs I corrected, the citations I standardized, spelling and grammar errors I fixed) or get banned or blocked. I mean, if you (impersonal) step back and think about it and look at the article, it actually looks more professional and is more NPOV since I joined the team in August. But what power do I have? I made a mistake then, and I've been on the defense ever since. If I were writing this article in a vacuum, that might affect its neutrality - but I'm not writing in a vacuum. And in reality, based on my training, I write and edit for my audience - which here on WP is an encyclopedia reader.

Assuming I'm pro-control, that makes one of me and more than six pro-gun editors. I have very little power, but my contributions have demonstrably improved the article and rounded the discussions. I'm crying again. I'm going to go eat lunch. Lightbreather (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On a personal note, if it is really causing you upset, you should step away. Misplaced Pages is not worth mental health. I think you are feeling on the defensive, and therefore failing to see what the suggestions we are making are. I understand being defensive,m but if you want the situation to change, you need to re-assess. Cant you see how " I am going to reorganize the lead and add more information" can be read in light of your previous interactions? Every statement you make comes across as confrontational. I understand being on the defensive, but you are not going to get anywhere without changing the attitude and impression of your actions. Stop doing "This is wrong, this is better". and more "What do you guys think about X, I found this, and maybe it would be better?". Look at the way some of the other talk page sections start. For example Sue's suggestion of photos, or the sugarman quote, or many of the sections throughout the archives. Even when we (the other editors) think everyone is going to agree with what we say, it still is coming across as "I had this idea, what do you think" not "Clearly we are not in compliance with guidelines X, Y and Z. I will fix it. If you object, or even agree but tweak, you are uncivil and pov". (exaggerated yes, but that is the impression I get from many of your comments). Being a journalism editor is a great background, but "editing" a solo article is a lot different than collaborating, particularly a collaboration on a controversial subject, where there are a labyrinth of policies and guidelines and precedent around controlling how that collaboration goes. For the record, I think the reaction to your previous section was an overreaction, but I agree with the end result (I agree with anastrophe's wording. The common wording used is ban, not restriction). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I find their problematic areas to be a much longer list than that. And, aside from the gnome portion of theri work before, everything seem to relentlessly follow a POV-direction pattern. It's not my dance to seek getting people smacked, but I think it would be good for them to give this topic a rest and move to their selection of the other 4 million+ articles not related to this for a while while while Lightbreather takes that breather. :-) . North8000 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The only "wrong" that I see that has been inflicted on Lightbearer is Anastrophe's referring to some breaking of wikilinks as "intentional" in an edit summary somewhere. Anastrophe, please don't impugn intent like that again. For the rest, I don't know, I'm not monitoring the content. North says these edits are POV; well, it's possible that they are. North is utterly wrong politically, but neutral enough as an editor and I trust their judgment. It's the kind of thing that perhaps needs to be brought up formally if this continues. BTW, I don't buy the whole "Misplaced Pages is a complete labyrinth" thing (with apologies for the SPA/SPI typo, and thank you Gaijin for linking it--I though it was already linked here). No, it's real simple. Edits are to be neutral in tone and based on secondary or tertiary sources. That's really it; the rest is partly common sense, partly editorial judgment, and agreed upon by consensus. Now, if any consensus is determined by a bunch of AK-47 toting idiots who are determined to turn Misplaced Pages into their don't-tread-on-me platform, we'd have a problem--but that's not the case. And yes, there's lots of other articles to edit. Too much investment is, encyclopedically speaking, not always a good thing. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit of my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ALightbreather&diff=579053064&oldid=579043955 had the appearance of being done specifically to break the wikilinks, since those were the only changes done to it. Apparently that wasn't the intent. Normally it is not necessary to edit another editor's comments to add one's own. I shouldn't have ascribed intent without proof. Anastrophe (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just sharing something

As another of my good-faith efforts to help improve this article devolves into another protracted discussion about my behaviors and intentions rather than about content, I would like to share an article my husband (an IT Manager, FWIW; I used to be a computer programmer/analyst before I went back to school to study journalism) shared with me recently. I know this isn't a new subject to you - who all have years, as opposed to my months - of active editing experience here on Misplaced Pages - but I found it fascinating, and it really validated my experience here, and my opinion about my experience, when I felt like giving up.

The Decline of Misplaced Pages, by Tom Simonite, Oct. 22, 2013.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am totally confused by all this fuss!

I'm very confused by what's happening in the history of this page.

For example today the lead paragraph was:

The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms. The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

It became:

The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. It only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

It was changed back with the reason: The ban did not prohibit possession. Yet section 110102 of the law states that

(a) RESTRICTION.--Section 922 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semi-automatic assault weapon.

Then follows a list of exemptions, including of already manufactured weapons, and a provision that the serial number show date of manufacture so one could tell which weapons this applied to.

Can someone tell me what is going on here? Why all the fuss. Prohibit means "make illegal" among other things. The law banned, prohibited, restricted, made illegal the civilian possession of certain new assault weapons and made provision to tell which ones were new. Most of the banned weapons had equivalents which remained legal. Why not get the details of this into the article, as well as the controversy generated by the required research, and stop worrying about whether one person's phrasing or another person's is better. That can be all cleaned up when you put the article up for Good Article review. For now, work on the content. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where your opinions lie in the gun control spectrum, or how knowledgeable you are about the topic, so apologies if this seems talking down. At a high level, I will say that the exceptions to the "prohibit possession" part were huge, to the point where supporters of the law saw that as the major failing (and detractors saw it as the saving grace). Further, it is important to distinguish between a retroactive/confiscatory ban on possession, and a grandfathered ban on possession. This law had a grandfathered ban, and the grandfathering resulting in MANY MANY MILLIONS of guns still being legally owned, as well as all the "copycats" that continued to be legal to make and own. Therefore it is inaccurate to say in the lede that it "prohibited possession" without the additional context. Although that context was certainly provided later, the lede should stand on its own as accurate mini-article. (On re-read it is in the lede, but I think should be made more clear if the direction was to go to the alternate wording) This may seem pedantic, but there are many different gun laws on the books or proposed, and many of them are in fact retroactive, and the proposers of such bans (including and particularly Feinstein, the author of THIS ban) have stated that they want them to be retroactive and confiscatory. (Also see other international bans such as UK and AU where the ban on possession was retroactive and confiscatory). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that StarryGrandma is referring largely to Lightbreather's ongoing effort to replace the word ban with restrict, rather than what you just discussed.North8000 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dont think so, SG specifically went into "prohibit" in their last paragraph and edit summary commentary, which is what led me down the above rabbit hole. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

North, it's not true that I have an ongoing effort to replace "ban" with "restrict." In fact, once we've established what "the ban" means (as a short phrase for the law) in this article, we can probably mostly use it in the rest of the article. I've discussed this previously, and one of my many edits that was reverted was when I went in and standardized the language through-out by mostly (where appropriate) using "the ban." (It is called "the ban," "the law," and "the act" in different parts of the article. The reader must, upon getting to the Provisions section in its current state, say, "What's this 'Act' referring to? Is it a different 'Act' than the one I read about earlier that's called 'the ban'?")

Also, as I said to Anastrophe last night, a ban is a restriction, but a restriction is not a ban. A ban is a prohibition. If y'all go back and read the law, you'll see how these words are used in the subsection. The word "ban" is actually only used in the large capacity ammunition feeding device part. Still, as I just said, I am not opposed to use of "the ban" (mostly) in the rest of the article, if we do a good job of defining what we MEAN when we use the term.

You guys could just ask me these things, and not assume that I'm up to something. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you think the ban applies only to the magazines, you do not correctly understand the law. The guns themselves were just as banned, and both guns and magazines pre-ban were grandfathered. Ban is far and away the WP:COMMONNAME for the law, used universally by pro and anti groups, and spawning a whole sub-market for pre-ban weapons (Still existing in places like CA that passed their own ban) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that. I have read the law dozens of times. To reiterate: I am not opposed to use of "the ban" (mostly) in the rest of the article - if we do a good job of defining what is MEANT by the term. I actually tried standardize use of "the ban" before, as shown further down in this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We (editors) don't interpret the text of the law in writing the article. We refer to reliable third party sources, not primary sources. The reliable third party sources that refer to the subject of this article as "the Federal Assault Weapon Restriction" can be found on the head of a pin. Plain english. It's known as a ban, it was a ban, switching it to 'restriction' rather than 'prohibition' is misleading and not supported by the sources. Law enforcement exceptions aren't notable to the lede, particularly when not even developed or sourced in the body (and it barely merits mention there). "In fact, once we've established what "the ban" means (as a short phrase for the law) in this article, we can probably mostly use it in the rest of the article." Editor lightbreather appears to be saying that it is not established that the Federal Assault Weapon Ban was a ban, and that we should establish this from a direct reading of the law - but allows that we can "probably mostly use it" (thank you). I see no wording here that's dispositive of a desire to collaborate, I'm sorry. We're now to have a discussion of the semantics of what "ban" means, and decide if it's okay to use that word in describing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, setting aside a bludgeoning preponderance of sources, because of editor Lightbreather's WP:OR? Anastrophe (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"The reliable third party sources that refer to the subject of this article as 'the Federal Assault Weapon Restriction' can be found on the head of a pin"? Anastrophe, please stop making sarcastic remarks when you reply to or about me, and please stop misrepresenting me. I did not propose changing the title of this article to that or say that the subject of this article was that. I was simply using the word that is used in the law itself, which begins:

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

See also this article, which someone else posted a link to here today: Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production. Lead sentence: The Senate voted 52-48 today to restrict the import and manufacture of of semiautomatic assault weapons...."

Or this one, also posted by someone else: House rejects proposed ban on assault guns. Sixth paragraph begins: "A leading proponent of the restrictions attributed the defeat in large part to a sour mood among House members...."

If you want to argue that "ban" is better than "restriction" in the context in which I used it, fine. But again, please stop with the sarcasm and misrepresentation. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made no misrepresentations, nor was I being sarcastic. You have misread, or read into my words things that aren't there. Please reread, I never represented that you proposed renaming it. Please stop throwing around charges of misrepresentation where none exist.Anastrophe (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(written before the above responses - edit conflict) The problem is that this was pushed into the lede based on an editor's original research. The details do belong in the article - in the body, sourced and cited as usual. The other problem is that the previous wording expressed essentially the same thing more directly. It's implicit that if new weapons cannot be manufactured, they likewise can't be possessed if they aren't being made. The lede should include the prohibition on certain magazines. But it's worth pointing out that you're skipping several intermediate revisions. The original version from two days ago has no serious problems that require a rewording. The lede certainly doesn't need to have the word 'ban' scrubbed from it and replaced with 'restriction' nor does the lede need non-notable details added such as law enforcement exceptions, as earlier edits did. The lede should never cover details that are not already in the body.Anastrophe (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I almost went down the "you cant possess what you cant manufacture" line of argument too, but on reflection, manufacture continued, for use by police/military so that's not really a solid argument (although certainly it would apply to home-brew manufacture) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Much of this could have been avoided simply by some tweaks to the already excellent wording, rather than a drastic rewording, for example,

"The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The U.S. Federal law included a ban on the manufacture, transfer, and possession for civilian use of specific semi-automatic firearms and magazines over ten rounds capacity. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The law was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. It expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date."

The edits in question were not as clearly written (setting aside the issue of WP:OR and exclusion of the word "ban"), and included details not covered in the body, said details which certainly belong in the body but are not notable enough for inclusion in an otherwise straightforward lede. Anastrophe (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

First, a request for Anastrophe. Please provide a diff or diffs to the edit or edits when I introduced original research into the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=578998707

B. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=next&oldid=579001246

C. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=next&oldid=579001714

D. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=next&oldid=579007574

What is your source for removing 'ban' or 'prohibition' and replacing it with 'restriction'? Anastrophe (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU for the links. To answer your question, let's take a look at "A". I broke the lead sentence - which was 52 words, and a -20 (that's MINUS 20) on the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score - into two sentences. Then, I changed the (new) second sentence from this:

" a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms."

To this: "The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines)."

The source was the law itself. The lead defines the law. A ban is a restriction, but a restriction is not (necessarily) a ban. Despite what "the ban" is commonly called, and the fact that I have said multiple times that I'm OK with using "the ban" in the article once we've defined the law it refers to, it is not just or only a ban. What was original research in the edit? Lightbreather (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"The source was the law itself.". That's WP:OR. An editor's interpretation of the meaning or wording of the text of the law is not acceptable per policy. "Despite what 'the ban' is commonly called" - "Despite"? It is not within an editor's purview to decide what 'the ban' is, was, or is commonly called, we rely on sources for this determination, not editor's personal opinions. Reliable sources - a tidal wave of reliable sources - make clear that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a ban. Watering it down because of one editor's personal interpretation of the wording of the legal text itself is not acceptable. "Once we've defined the law it refers to" - no! We don't make that determination, the sources do. Editor Lightbreather is on a path of interpretation, rather than reliable sources. It's pleasant that editor Lightbreather is okay with using the term, but meaningless. Again - an utterly overwhelming preponderance of sources refer to the ban as a ban, and an overwhelming preponderance of source understand that the ban was a ban. I, for one, will not be dragged into a semantic argument that has no basis in reliable sources, and that will never stand up to policy scrutiny. So yes, I'm bowing out of this. I've never nominated an editor for ANI or any other sanctions, I'm not going to begin here. Others may do so. But being sucked into this vortex is a colossal waste of this - and likely other editor's - valuable time, on a completely unsupportable path. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually per WP:MOSLAW when primary and secondary sources differ on matters of law, the law wins - but a section title called "restriction" where that restriction is a complete prohibition is in no way in conflict with calling the ban a ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The term "restriction", in the context of this/a federal law, is a legal Term of Art. Thus why secondary sources are reliable for interpretation, and why we use them, rather than interpreting the meaning of the text of the law itself. Anastrophe (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42. Last night, I spent several hours slogging through the WP policies, guidelines, essays, etc. trying to figure out how including the plain, English words in a law, or the facts of a law, in an article about a law could possibly be called OR. I also found the guideline you mention, specifically the Citations and referencing section, which says, and I quote: where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority. The Misplaced Pages article about term of art "has multiple issues," as they say. I can't find anything in online legal dictionaries that define a special relationship between the terms "restriction" and "ban" that's at odds with plain English dictionaries. Lightbreather (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for the determination that the primary and secondary sources are in conflict factually? I'm asking for a citation of a source that identifies that the law as written is at odds with what secondary sources say it means. We base this encyclopedia on what others have written. We don't make the determination that the law and secondary sources are at odds. We use reliable sources for that determination. Again: I'm asking for your reliable source(s) that have suggested the facts are at odds, not your interpretation of whether they are at odds.Anastrophe (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My accuser may think talking with me is a colossal waste of time, but I'm not going to let accusations stand without defending myself. Looking at the "B" diff:

Before: "The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment."

After: "The restrictions only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the ban's enactment; possession and transfer of weapons and magazines legally owned before enactment was not restricted."

Again, the source was the law itself. The edit was not OR. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff "C" was also a good-faith edit after A. reverted my prior edit (without starting a discussion). I thought (mistakenly) that he didn't get it, and I wrote in my edit summary, "restored good-faith edit after revert; the ban *restricted* possession (prohibition in details)."

Finally, as for diff "D":

Before: "The United States law banned the manufacture and transfer of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). The ban only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the law's enactment; possession and transfer of weapons and magazines legally owned before enactment was not restricted."

After: "The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). It allowed manufacture for and transfer to U.S. and state agencies and to legally qualified active and retired law-enforcment agents, but it prohibited civilian possession and transfer of most such weapons and magazines. Exceptions were provided, including weapons and magazines legally owned before the law was enacted."

The source was the law. There was no OR.

An editor making choices about what parts of the law to quote or use for interpretation constitutes WP:OR. It's very simple. Unless an editor is going to quote this entire law verbatim, the editor is making an editorial choice of what parts of the legal text to include in the article. That is not our editorial prerogative. The Act opens with "To make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons." Why are we not choosing to use that as our starting point? It is the exact legal text. Then we don't even really need much of an article - "The assault weapon ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess assault weapons" full stop. And that doesn't even mention manufacture, so, quoting the legal text, it's incorrect to say that it restricted manufacture. Editor lightbreather is making personal judgement of what parts of the law to quote strictly, and what parts to interpret otherwise. Lumping large-cap magazines into the same bucket as assault weapons, even though the legal text clearly states that they are 'banned' and 'prohibited', invalidates the text that is protested to be accurate. This quagmire is why editors instead go to reliable sources for interpretation, rather than picking and choosing what parts of the raw legal text to use based upon their own interpretation of the meaning of the wording. Anastrophe (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Second, regarding accusations that I tried or am trying to replace the word "ban" or the term "the ban" with something else in the article. Here are six separate edits when I standardized use of the term:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574959105&oldid=574958977
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574954397&oldid=574952973
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574952393&oldid=574951728
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574662586&oldid=574661676
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574660781&oldid=574660079

Again, I think use of the term "the ban" throughout the article, when appropriate, would help the reader, as long as we don't try to hoodwink the reader into thinking that "the ban" was only about banning the manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Before we use the term "the ban" as a shorthand for the formal name of the law, or for the commonly used "assault weapons ban," we must clarify what "the ban" was. The controversy can be defined briefly in the lead and expanded in an appropriate section or sections. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What controversy needs to be defined, specifically? Anastrophe (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How would ""the ban" was only about banning the manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use" be hoodwinking the reader? Thats EXACTLY what it DID do (albeit ineffectively due to the grandfather clause, and the ease of circumventing the ban features) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why we discuss things before posting incorrect information and then edit warring over it. I think a read of WP:3RR and WP:CRUSH are in order here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell, I did not post "incorrect information." I appreciate that you think I am not editing in good faith. I also believe that other editors on this page know that is your opinion, too. Would you please stop repeating the same accusations? Or if you must, put them on my talk page with diffs to what you're challenging? Also, may I post to your talk page - or do you continue to prefer that I post on/reply to personal differences on this article's talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You did post incorrect information, based upon your own stated rationale. You included 'large cap magazines' under the banner of "restriction", whereas the law clearly states that they are banned/prohibited. You are interpreting the law apparently by whim, which is why we need to use reliable sources for determination of what the law is. Anastrophe (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather : You are correct that there is no discrepancy between restriction and ban in this context. That is because the restriction was a ban. The word ban does not need to be defined, it is a very common English word. If that word needs to be explained, then so does restriction, and we can play that game running through the whole dictionary. WP:MOSLAW talks about when there is a conflict between the primary and secondary sources - it does not apply, because there is no conflict. The law DOES ban. That it chose to describe the ban as a restriction is irrelevant. per WP:EUPHAMISM we should describe the law in the most straightforward way, which is that manufacture or possession of newly made weapons and magazines that met the criteria, was banned (I would also accept prohibited here, but per WP:COMMONNAME gives more weight to ban) . This is not in the least bit inaccurate or misleading. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Feinstein source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (Youtube convenience link, but we can cite 60 min directly)Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin. I appreciate the collegial response, and I respect your opinion... though I still have a slightly different one. I found the YouTube clip. I have also left a message with CBS News Services to see if I can get a transcript. There are a few to be found online, but from questionable sources. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Background (proposed)

Below is my proposed Background section. Gentlemen (and ladies) I have tried to find some good quality sources from 1989-1994 for a well-developed "opposed" paragraph or two - maybe from the NRA, NSSF, SAF, GOA? - but I am having a hard time finding anything useful. If you can suggest something, please let me know. Here are some sources I found from that time that at least mention the NRA. I'm going to go back and re-read them now.

• http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/14/us/california-becomes-the-first-state-to-vote-curbs-on-assault-rifles.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html
• http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-24/news/mn-745_1_assault-weapons-bill-signing-stockton-schoolyard
• http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html
• http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-30/magazine/tm-819_1_assault-weapons
• http://articles.courant.com/1993-12-20/news/0000000491_1_gun-control-assault-weapons-assault-weapon-law
• http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/crime/kaminer1.htm
• http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban
• http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-06/news/mn-54512_1_assault-weapons-ban
• http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-08/news/1994128021_1_assault-weapon-ban-gun-control-gun-ban
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-05-08/news/9405080319_1_weapons-ban-semiautomatic-assault-weapons-gun-control

Also, re: the Sugarmann paragraph at the end, I'm open to suggestions for putting it elsewhere in the article, but I really think it needs to go in somewhere. The Violence Policy Center has been a cited source on gun-control issues for years, but the opposition I've heard here so far here (unless I missed something) is that the VPC changed its mind about AWB 1994, so its opinion on the AWB is moot. But that would be like saying Wayne LaPierre and the NRA once supported background checks, but now they don't, so their opinion on BGCs is moot.

Looking forward to feedback...

BackgroundContext

The assault weapons ban was Title XI, Subtitle A, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A section of the ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects, especially on violent and drug-trafficking crime. The result, published in 1997, was Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The report was funded by a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant and written by research associates at the Urban Institute. Its primary authors were Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context.

In a brief version of the report published in 1999, Roth and Koper said that "he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers."

Roth and Koper outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993 accounting for 86 deaths and 76 injuries. Among these, in January 1989 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died.

In March 1989, President George H.W. Bush banned the import of semiautomatic rifles pending a review of their use. Lawmen said they were often outgunned, and doctors and nurses in big cities reported increases in deaths and injuries from semiautomatic weapons. In May 1989, California became the first state in U.S. to ban the sale of assault weapons. In July, the Bush administration declared the the temporary import ban to be permanent on 43 of the 50 models reviewed. The year 1989 also marked the beginning of efforts to create a federal assault weapons ban.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that semi-automatic weapons were used in only 1 percent of crimes, but 2 million times a year by citizens for self defense.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. In May 1994of that year, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

In January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. Later, the VPC supported replacing the ban with a tougher law, saying that the firearms industry had evaded the ban and that simply renewing it would not address the danger assault weapons pose to public safety.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the best intentions, such a section is inevitably Misplaced Pages editors selecting / building a list of talking points / arguments for and against the ban. Also editors selecting and stating particular reasonings as the motivations of proponents of the ban. For example opponents don't just argue the effectiveness of the ban. Opponents generally say that the hard core opponents of firearm ownership was the actual motivation, and they tried to capitalize on tragedies, and sow and capitalize on confusion between military weapons and the ones affected by this ban in order to pass a ban that bans common firearms, such as the pistol configurations that police routinely carry. I'd rather avoid that slippery slope and it is not directly about the subject of the article. Right now it is a pretty straightforward article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Background" is too broad and open to interpretation. Let's stick to the specific history of this law, rather than speculative history based upon iterative predicates of this law. As this draft stands, if it's to be comprehensive/accurate, it should begin with the 1934 NFA. Are there secondary sources that say that all of the listed details in this draft are predicate to the law, or have they just been chained together by discretion? We need to be mindful of scope and relevance, particularly wrt WP:UNDUE. . Anastrophe (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Our article's review suggests that it needs a short origins, history, or background section to put it in context. The review refers to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (crime bill) background statement. It suggests our article needs a statement like that and also refers to the beginning of the research brief from the first NIJ impact evaluation.

The crime-bill lead's second paragraph (background) says:

"Following the 101 California Street shootings, the 1993 Waco Siege, and other high-profile instances of violent crime, the act expanded federal law in several ways. One of the most noted sections was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Other parts of the act provided for a greatly expanded federal death penalty, new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms, and a variety of new crimes defined in statutes relating to immigration law, hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crime."

The NIJ Brief leads with (first two paragraphs):

"On January 17, 1989, Patrick Edward Purdy, armed with an AKS rifle—a semiautomatic variant of the military AK–47—returned to his childhood elementary school in Stockton, California, and opened fire, killing 5 children and wounding 30 others. Purdy, a drifter, squeezed off more than 100 rounds in 1 minute before turning the weapon on himself.

"During the 1980s and early 1990s, this tragedy and other similar acts of seemingly senseless violence, coupled with escalating turf and drug wars waged by urban gangs, sparked a national debate over whether legislation was needed to end, or at least restrict, the market for imported and domestic “assault weapons.” Beginning in 1989, a few States enacted their own assault weapons bans, but it was not until 1994 that a Federal law was enacted."

The brief mentioned in our peer review was published in 1999 and is a condensed version of the full report published in 1997. The full report has two pages of "context" that appears to be where the brief summary came from. Rather than discuss background vs. history, may I suggest "Context" as a compromise on the section title?

At any rate, since no preponderance of sources found it necessary to give a history of U.S. firearms law prior to 1989, it would be inappropriate for us to do so. That would belong in an article about the history of firearms law in the U.S. If there is something in the draft that you think doesn't belong there, let's discuss that and maybe cut it. I'd rather make the section shorter rather than longer (though I would like another sentence or two re: opposition). Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The crime bill lede could probably stand to be trimmed too. Relevance based on what sources say is what matters, not what we think is relevant. I'm not proposing making it longer, I was being ironic. Unless reliable sources say that X/Y/Z were predicate to this law, we don't include them. "Law enforcement says they are outgunned" is a common refrain repeated in favor of many, many gun control laws (regarless of its falsity and speciousness). Again - have these been strung together via editor discretion, or are these the details that reliable sources say were predicate to this law? (The 'this other article says this' argument is invalid - countless articles have problems and need fixing, the assumption here seems to be that the VCCLEA is canonical. We don't work from assumptions.) Anastrophe (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources - reliable and verifiable - are listed. Irony doesn't come across well in writing. (I tried it a few times before and it didn't go well.) If law enforcement says they are outgunned in numerous reliable, verifiable sources, it's an argument that can't be dismissed because an editor thinks it's false or specious. (Maybe if a tsunami of reliable, verifiable sources say it's false and specious... That's irony.) In an article about as controversial a topic as gun control, a good editor wouldn't dismiss the claim. He or she would briefly state what law enforcement says, briefly state what other reliable, verifiable sources say - and let the reader decide what he/she makes of the debate. Lightbreather (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the 'law enforcement says/nurses say' statement - i'm asking for the specific citation to where those claims are directly linked to this law. as user Gaijin42 mentioned, it would be helpful if the cites were inline, it's impossible to tell which ref goes with which statement otherwise, and as a courtesy to your peers - so that we don't each have to sift through the sources and do the matching up - if they could be cited inline it would save everyone else a lot of trouble. Who is quoting law enforcement/nurses? As heresay statements (likely) expanded coverage of what rank and file law enforcement said, or what average NRA members said, would balance that one-sided statement. Anastrophe (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the first two paragraphs - based on a report from mid-ban - is nearly a third of the draft, but ultimately boils down to just the last two sentences of the second graf, which offers a relevant rationale. The last graf quote from Sugarmann need only state that they supported the ban. It is already covered later in the article that they changed their stance after the law was in place - which implicitly means it's not part of the background. Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, the draft includes Senator Feinstein's complaint that the bill was a weakened version of the original proposal. That inclusion certainly merits details of just what that original proposal was: A ban and confiscation, as Senator Feinstein stated herself. For completeness, these details should be included. Anastrophe (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can give me a link to a transcript of the source, I agree. You mentioned a 60 Minutes interview once before, but I can't find a link to a good source for the transcript. Lightbreather (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather

• It would have been helpful had you put the citations inline as it would be in the article, so we could verify which sources were backing which statements.
• In particular I am interested in the "lawmen and nurses" line, and how tightly the source associates those statements to the bill.
  • Also, that statement is exceedingly vague. Which lawmen, which nurses. Was it a handful, or a survey done where some large percentage said this, etc.
• The 1997 study I feel is getting WP:UNDUE weight (3 paragraphs for one source?), while it can be used, we should not be presenting its findings as facts, but as the opinions of those authors.
• That California banned weapons is irrelevant to the federal bill
• Agree that Feinsteins complaint about being watered down should include the context of what she wanted "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Some possible additional sources

• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JGcxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6BIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6963,4617165&dq=assault-weapon&hl=en
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=onk0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=6pYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7212,4372530&dq=assault-weapon&hl=en
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wbkiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QLUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1505,2654042&dq=assault-weapon&hl=en

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Gaijin42, about how I presented the sources. I have been struggling with how to do that in a talk-page discussion. In an article, you have a reflist, and that's pretty straightforward, but when you try to use a reflist on a talk page you end up with weird results. If you have tips on doing this, or can point me to a WP resource that does, I would be most beholden. Actually, I just had an idea, so I'll go back and try that... Lightbreather (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, that is a cool trick, Gaijin! I looked for how to do that, but couldn't figure it out. That's why my old talk-page drafts have such hinky references. Thanks! (I see some mistakes in the list. Are you still working on it?) Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I didnt do anything to the list, I just added the reflist template. Everything else was autogenerated by the links you made. I suggest moving those sources inline to the text just like in an article. That will make it easy to evaluate the sources, and if this content is ultimately promoted to the article, would make it a simple copy/paste job. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Going to lunch. Will fix when I get back. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Other sources I'd like to find are statements or transcripts from the Congressional hearings at the time, or news reports of the hearings. Those ought to have statements from the ban's opposition - but I couldn't find them. Lightbreather (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Context (3rd draft)

The assault weapons ban was Title XI, Subtitle A, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A section of the ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects, especially on violent and drug-trafficking crime. The result, published in 1997, was Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The report was funded by a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant and written by research associates at the Urban Institute. Its primary authors were Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context.

In a brief version of the report published in 1999, Roth and Koper said: "he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers."

Roth and Koper outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993 accounting for 86 deaths and 76 injuries. Among these, in January 1989 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died.

In March 1989, President George H.W. Bush banned the import of semiautomatic rifles pending a review of their use. Lawmen said they were often outgunned, and doctors and nurses in big cities reported increases in deaths and injuries from semiautomatic weapons. In May 1989, California became the first state in U.S. to ban the sale of assault weapons. In July, the Bush administration declared the the temporary import ban to be permanent on 43 of the 50 models reviewed. The year 1989 also marked the beginning of efforts to create a federal assault weapons ban.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. In May of that year, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

Alan Simpson, R-WY, and other senators called for tougher criminal penalties instead of gun bans. In October 1991, after a massacre in Killeen, Texas, gun control opponents pointed out that the pistols used by the gunmen were not even on the proposed list of banned weapons. Gun makers and the National Rifle Association (NRA) questioned the constitutionality of assault weapons bans. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that semi-automatic weapons were used in only 1 percent of crimes, but 2 million times a year by citizens for self defense. One year later, McIntyre said, "We are going to do what we can to make sure no gun ban becomes law." Many opponents of the ban said that Feinstein's intention in writing the ban was confiscation, an argument supported by one of her remarks in a news interview in February 1995. She said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in' - I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

References

1. ^ 103rd Congress (1994). "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 201–215.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
2. ^ Roth, Jeffrey A.; Koper, Christopher S. (1997). "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
3. Roth, Jeffrey A. (March 1999). "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban" (PDF). National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (NCJ 173405). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. ^ "Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production". The Pittsburgh Press. Associated Press. May 23, 1990. p. A13.
5. ^ Pazniokas, Mark (December 20, 1993). "One Gun's Journey Into A Crime". The Courant. Hartford, CT.
6. Mohr, Charles (March 15, 1989). "U.S. BANS IMPORTS OF ASSAULT RIFLES IN SHIFT BY BUSH". The New York Times.
7. ^ "State : Governor Signs Gun Law Legalizing First Ban on Assault Weapons". Los Angeles Times. May 24, 1989.
8. Rasky, Susan F. (July 8, 1989). "Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent". The New York Times.
9. Bunting, Glenn F. (November 9, 1993). "Feinstein Faces Fight for Diluted Gun Bill". Los Angeles Times.
10. Sugarmann, Josh (1994). "Reverse FIRE: The Brady Bill won't break the sick hold guns have on America. It's time for tougher measures". Mother Jones. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
11. Eaton, William J. (May 5, 1994). "Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban". Los Angeles Times.
12. Seelye, Katharine Q. (July 28, 1994). "Assault Weapons Ban Allowed To Stay in Anti-crime Measure". The New York Times.
13. "House rejects proposed ban on assault guns". The Milwaukee Sentinel. October 18, 1991. p. 15A.
14. "Senate Acts To Ban Assault Weapons: Brady Bill Still Awaiting Action". Chicago Tribune. November 18, 1993.
15. "NRA vows to retaliate over assault weapon ban". Los Angeles Times. The Baltimore Sun. May 8, 1994.
16. Dianne Feinstein (February 5, 1995). "What Assault Weapons Ban?" (Interview). Interviewed by Lesley Stahl. If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in' - I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)

Great another information flood. The article as it stands is pretty straightforward, and neutral. I don't think it needs a new section with all new material. If somebody feels that there is material already in the article that should be compiled into a new section, then great! But as far as I can tell, this is just more WP:CRUSH, designed to work WP:OR and WP:POV into the article. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to any major changes to this article, because it's already very complete and stable, and needs no re-writes. If an entire new section is warranted, then let's start it off with information that is already in the article, not a flood of new stuff. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that such a new section would be a bad idea. By it's very nature it would be a POV magnet / wp:coatrack. And such would change situation from a straightforward on-target article to a wandering dramafest. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also the approach of picking the stated reasons and talking points of the proponents as the background/context (and then for the other side giving only responses to those selected topics) is inherently POV. For example, the stated reason for most of the 2013 US government shutdown was the downsides of Obamacare. But in the article on the shutdown, you don't seen an analysis of the downsides of Obamacare (and maybe rebuttals to those statements) in a big "context" section there. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If it sounded like I was suggesting that approach, I didn't mean to. I would like to develop some opposition material concurrent with the birth of the ban, not as a counterpoint to what proponents said, but as a summary of what the opposition's main objections were. Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you intended to but IMO that is what you did. You have given/selected the pro-ban talking points/reasons as the relevant background, and then are seeking pro's and con's on those talking points. That is one step too late in the process. For example, the background could be a discussion of who proposed it and their previous history of such proposals. That is why IMO one of the reasons that such a possible section is so problematic. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, and not just by me, the first three paragraphs are derived from a single source, and certainly flirt with WP:UNDUE. (Previous sentence - beginning with "As previously mentioned..." - is by Anastrophe; I am adding a line break here to reply to that.)

Just to clarify, do you mean the three paragraphs beginning with the paragraph that starts "The assault weapons ban..." or the one that starts "In a brief version..."? Lightbreather (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm aware that five sources are listed in the section. The directly relevant background information is from a single source, which is covered in the trimmed version I provided. Anastrophe (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Yes" isn't really a useful response to an 'or' construct, sorry. Yes, the first three paragraphs, that implicitly begin with "The assault weapons ban". Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not.  ;-) <--- And that is a friendly wink. OK. That helps me to digest your proposal. (As an aside, I am preparing to have a house-guest most of this month, so I will be editing in spurts. And, I will be trying to put lots of thought into my questions and comments when I am able to get in my computer - which is on my office/guest-room. So, please, be patient.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Now that I understand I can write a reply. First, the only other editor I see who suggested that the first three paragraphs have only one source was Gaijin, on Oct. 31. That was my fault, because it was before he showed me the cool reflist code to use on a talk page - so the sources for that first draft were hard to discern. In fact, as the citations for the draft now shows, there are five sources for that information. One is the law itself. Two more are the report that the AG was directed to present and the brief from that report. Two others are newspaper reports. The reason I didn't use only the mandated report or its brief?

In August, when I added a sentence to the lead about legal challenges to the ban, it was moved to the body of the text until a section on legal challenges was developed. When a legal challenges section was developed, one of the reasons that was given for not putting it in the article was that it needed more sources. I'm not bringing this up to re-open a discussion about legal challenges, but to show that's why I looked for more sources to support the report's background/context information. I took the previous requests to heart. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a trimmed version that contains the same relevant material.

The ban included a directive to the U.S Attorney General to report on the efficacy of the ban. The first report, in 1997, summarized the stated goals of the ban as an attempt to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed using weapons similar to those banned, while minimizing the effect the ban might have on recreational and other use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers. The authors of the report pointed to several high-profile mass shootings that provided the impetus to move towards a ban.

Same information. Details such as the section and title of the law, grant funding, authors names, etc, should be placed in the refs where they belong. One paragraph.

I'm sorry, but the suggestion in your second sentence is unclear to me. Would you please elaborate on what you mean by "Details such as the section and title of the law, grant funding, authors names, etc, should be placed in the refs where they belong."? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a recapitulation of the details of what the title and subtitle of the law are, the authors names, who provided the grants, etc, - in the body of the text. Those details are better placed in the references, it's not necessary that they be spelled out in such detail in what should be summarizing language. Anastrophe (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I partly agree, but your comment brings something else to mind. May I start another section to discuss things that come up secondary to this discussion - which is already pretty long? Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Stockton shooting is mentioned in numerous sources. I only included a couple because I didn't want to introduce citation overkill. Here's something between my original (243 words) and your trimmed version (86 words, but a 14th grade level per the Flesch-Kincaid readability index).

The assault weapons ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects within 30 months of enactment. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context. A brief version of the report said: "he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers." The full report outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993. Among these, in January 1989, 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died.

It's 155 words - 88 words less than orig., 69 more than yours - with grade 12 readability. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, Feinstein's quote is relevant to info earlier, so should be juxtaposed with it. It doesn't require the quote in the body, putting it in the ref would be fine. Something along the lines of "In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal, which would have been an outright ban and confiscation of the weapons". Anastrophe (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

On why this article will be improved by a Context section

On Sept. 30, 2013, in this talk space, the questions were asked: " this article is complete and NPOV, where is the background / introductory material? What are the origins of this law? Who wrote it? Why? Who supported it? What were the legal challenges that are alluded to?"

Gaijin42 replied: " lack of origin/historical information is probably not a POV issue (in this case), but certainly it can be a lack of completeness. If you know of good sourcing, that would be an excellent addition."

So an "Origins" section was developed. Anastrophe and I took it through a BRD process. The result of that process can be seen in the article's history. Unfortunately, it was lost in a rollback later the same day.

The next day, a group of editors including Anastrophe, North8000, Sue Rangell, and I, agreed they would like the article to get a peer review. We got a few suggestions from outside editors later in that discussion. Editor Calathan wrote :

... I do think some sections seemed biased and could use a rewrite. In particular, the first paragraph under "Criteria of an assault weapon" seems problematic (which from what is written here, sounds to be one of the main parts in contention). That section of the article seems like it should be presenting only a list of criteria for what was prohibited by the ban, with no discussion in that section of whether the criteria made sense or whether the ban did anything useful. Instead, the first paragraph gives the impression that the criteria didn't really ban anything that was useful to ban. While that may be true, I don't think that is the right placement for that information, and placing it there does give the article the feel of having a pro-gun slant. Conversely, the section titled "compliance" says basically the same thing (that the criteria only amounted to cosmetic features, and only cosmetic changes were required to guns), but that section doesn't feel biased at all. Basically, it just feels wrong to place criticisms of the ban before a description of the ban itself, and that is what the article seems to be doing in its current state. ...

From the formal peer review on Oct. 25, which said: "The article needs a short origins, history, or background section to put this law in context."

The following firearms-law related articles have background, context, or history information in their leads or in developed sections: Second Amendment, National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Gun-Free School Zones Act, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1994.

Ideas? After finding and adding more opposition background, may I add the Context section?

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Instead, the first paragraph gives the impression that the criteria didn't really ban anything that was useful to ban. While that may be true, I don't think that is the right placement for that information, and placing it there does give the article the feel of having a pro-gun slant."; "Basically, it just feels wrong to place criticisms of the ban before a description of the ban itself, and that is what the article seems to be doing in its current state.". There is no criticism of the ban. There is no pro-gun slant (the sources for the word that it appears you are having an issue with are evenly balanced between the pro-rights and pro-control sides). "eels wrong" seems awfully subjective. But since I don't want to assume, I'd like to know if by 'criticism' what is being referred to is the word "cosmetic". If not, what change to the text needs to be made to mitigate this impression that it is criticism and that it 'feels wrong'? Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm trying to understand exactly what the relevance of Editor Calathan's comments are, which have nothing at all to do with a context section. Why were they included in this? Anastrophe (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Anastrophe. I believe the editor's comments are more about placement of the Criteria section than its contents. Our reviewer said a similar thing: "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it." Lightbreather (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay - but I still don't understand what direct relevance it has to a background/history/context section. Is it simply that such a section will come before the criteria section, thus pushing it lower and fixing its 'placement'? This isn't to say that I'm against a background section, nor that I don't think it should be immediately after the lede. But this draft of the context section as it stands gives a heavy 'pro-control' stance right out the gate (acknowledging that pro-rights content is being sought).Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I just added opposition info I could find that was contemporary to/with the ban. I even included the Feinstein quote from her 1995 interview on 60 Minutes. I was trying to keep sources from the section between 1989 and 1994 - which mirrors the background info from the source given to us by our peer reviewer - but to keep the peace and show that I am not trying to tip the article POV, I added it. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's untangle the questions

I think we're blending too many different things together here. We have a significant discussion on the proposed context section previous to this. In this section that comes up again, plus some discussions of criteria section and sequencing and the recurring notes of a possible POV with the current article. We should separate these. And towards that end, I would ask this question: Does anybody here feel that the current article is slanted? And if so, could you describe what you feel gives it that slant? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the Context section, I just added the opposition info I could find that was contemporary to (with) the ban. As a peace offering, I even included the Feinstein quote from her 1995 interview on 60 Minutes. I was really trying to keep sources from the section between 1989 and 1994 - which mirrors the background info from the source given to us by our peer reviewer - but there you go. If y'all have more/better sources, please share.

So is this section meant to be a discussion about placement, sequencing, etc.? Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was asking the question about the current article, overall. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that Calathan's comments of Oct. 1 and StarryGrandma's peer review of Oct. 25 do a great job of explaining why the article comes across as "slanted" (using your word, North, not mine). This is similar to what I tried to express back in August, but which got lost in those conversations. If you remember, my observation then was NOT that the word "cosmetic" (and I do NOT want to start that conversation again - please) didn't belong in the article, but that it didn't belong in that section of the article. Presently, we have an unusually short lead (for an article about a controversial topic) that partly defines the law and gives some other info... and then it launches immediately into the details of the ban. Our sources that deal with the whole law (ban) start with the top and work down, or start with the easier to understand and move into the more difficult. I have made a little table to show this, and this is NOT "OR" to put into the article, but a presentation by one editor for fellow editors to show how sources present the ban. The first column shows language of the ban itself, and the text in red is what the editors of this article have chosen to lead with and put in the first section. The other columns show how three sources present introductory information. None goes into what we've labeled "Criteria" (practically) first. Two that give all the named, banned weapons do so in tabular format (as SG has suggested) and the last just includes those details in text. Give me a minute while I upload my PDF file.

Lightbreather (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm completely confused. Editor Lightbreather just wrote "I think that Calathan's comments of Oct. 1 and StarryGrandma's peer review of Oct. 25 do a great job of explaining why the article comes across as "slanted"". I'm...baffled. Flummoxed. StarryGrandma's peer review of Oct 25 opened with the following statement:

"I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it." {emphasis mine}

How do we make the leap from 'has problems with point of view' to 'the article comes across as slanted'? Please explain. In what way does StarryGrandma's opening sentence support this contention? Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I am doing this from my "smart" phone so please, if something hinky happens, it's on account of that. StarryGrandma started with a positive comment. A good idea on any review, but especially on this article in the current editorial environment.

"I don't see that the article OVERALL has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it." {emphasis mine} It goes on to say: "Like many articles on laws this one needs more organization and needs more information about the provisions of the law." It then gives a bulleted list of 16 items under 4 sections. SG's whole review, PLUS Calathan's comments address "slant" (again, North's word.)

Let's not leap from all of that feedback to saying the article "has problems with point of view," because of course taken together those reviews do not support that statement either.

Let's just work on the suggestions. That's what I'd like to do. Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well Lightbreather, there might be a "win win" in all of this. When I look at what you prepared, I see the current article as a reasonably good, straightforward NPOV summary which could be improved by including some of the objective material in the other sources you listed, and possibly by even incorporating some sequencing ideas from them. (I think that there are a few misleading / biased items in those sources but they are only about 5% of the material) What YOU see is an article which you think has a POV problem which would be corrected by doing the same thing. I don't know what others think, but my idea would be to do some incremental work at a taking it easy / no avalanches pace to see where /how that that goes. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope I didn't seem to suggest that we incorporate all of the material in those sources into the Context section. I think where the background/introductory material is similar, that's probably appropriate - and some of it might be appropriate for other sections, or not. My main point was that they start at the top, with the basics, and add the details at the appropriate time. Lightbreather (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way. but wondering if you might have been (mis) reading my post as thinking that. My comments were more along the lines of to proceed SLOWLY, and a small amount at a time, with open discussion. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather ANI vote

Lightbreather, you have gone through the comments and apparently sterilized anything that you do not want to read. You have changed or removed comments written by other editors. You have done this without discussion or permission. Your actions are completely unnacceptable. Here is one of many examples.I politely request that you return my comments, and the comments of any other editors whom you have similarly victimized, over the past months to their original states. Do this on this talk page as well as the archives if you have changed them (I haven't checked them yet). This constitutes vandalism, and I am calling for the editors here to comment on whether or not it is appropriate to take this issue to ANI. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in pretty strong opposition to Lightbreather's "context" section idea both in concept and the draft. And they did get really wiki-wild previously. But the analysis that they did in the subsequent section (that image) looks promising. My thought is to try to get into a mellowed out "wait and see" mode, while not avoiding direct spirited conversation on the content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely about the "context" section. However I think it is completely unnacceptable to alter and remove comments on a talk page. This editor repeatedly does damage, and then claims it was an "error". I learned a long time ago not to take another editor to ANI unless there is a consensus, so I am hoping to get more comments here about LB's actions, the POV, vandalism (Whether intentional or unintentional), SPA considerations, WP:CRUSH activity, etc. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this one from the sidelines, but I would agree with taking him to ANI. ROG5728 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North, for the vote to mellow out - but what does "And they did get really wiki-wild previously" refer to? Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

IMHO you previously did a lot of stuff that was sure to create fireworks (to put it mildly) on a contentious article. And the idea of drafting an entire new section of a likely-problematic type and content and asking for (only) feedback/help only in specific areas defined by you is IMHO repeating that problem and a looks like a "maneuver" in wiki-terms. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue, I have asked you repeatedly to stop with the personal attacks and accusations. I have asked you numerous times to stop, and I've asked you to strike the accusations. Most recent requests here, and here and HERE, after you wrote: "It is vandalism to repeatedly and knowingly, break links, wipe talk pages, and place false information into a Misplaced Pages article. Lightbreather has done all of these things." Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed your harmful posts here, here, and here, with edit summaries "Removing harmful posts per WP:TPO, WP:WIAPA accusations about and criticisms of." WP:TPO says one may remove another editor's comments if they're "harmful posts, including personal attacks." WP:WIAPA says some comments are never acceptable, including:

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
• Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:DR.

What else are you referring to? Diffs, please. Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

IF YOU WILL PLEASE PROVIDE DIFFS, I WILL DROP EVERYTHING THAT I AM WORKING ON AND WORK FULL TIME TO EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY ONE. This invitation is open to any other editor who thinks I have knowingly vandalized their user spaces or articles or article talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this important caution in the policy you cite: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.". You have your objection. Please restore the comments you've scrubbed from this page. Sue's comments, while strongly worded and which can be read as personal attacks, rise nowhere near the threshhold that A Reasonable Person would suggest require scrubbing from the page. Remember that WP:TPO is a guideline not a policy. Removing other editor's comments is something that should be a last resort, because the likelyhood is that it will almost certainly just further inflame and aggravate the situation. It is, in short, a Very, Very, Bad Idea. If you become more familiar with wikipedia, you'll see that editors removing other editor's comments on talk page is not a common occurrence; but when it happens, it succeeds only in causing a shitstorm with high levels of collateral damage. Think twice, then think thrice again before doing it. Anastrophe (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, if someone repeatedly accused you of knowingly vandalizing pages and ignored your requests to strike those accusations, how would you respond? Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not by removing their comments. I've been here many years, interacted with hundreds of editors, been in some horrendously contentious fights, but I've never removed another editor's comments. Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. But what WOULD you do? Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it's a bad idea to speculate on what way I'd act. Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And I repeat: objections have been raised to the removal of the comments. You need to restore them. Anastrophe (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a time-frame this has to be done in? How does one start a dispute resolution. You DO have more experience than I on Misplaced Pages. I feel bullied by Sue! What do I do? Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I may have more experience, but I don't have experience with dispute resolution - or at least, only minimal experience, having been notified of disputes and asked to weigh in. You do realize that you have repeated Sue's comments in your other commentary, which sort of defeats the entire purpose of having scrubbed them from the page in the first place? Just put them back where they were, and let it go. It's not a path or fight I think is worth the time. That's just my opinion. Again, I've been in countless disputes over the years, disputes 'lite' and disputes '10 ton weight on the heart'. It's important to keep in mind that wikipedia is largely anonymous. Your reputation here is as a username, nothing more. You are not your username. "Sue Rangell" may be a nom de guerre, nom de plume, her real name, or some other real person's name. So even if Sue comes here and says 'no, I really am named Sue Rangell', there's no real way to prove it, not in the 21st century. I'm only known as anastrophe, and while it's not ridiculously difficult to piece together who I may be, it's also ridiculously easy to fall down a manhole during the search. We only know you as Lightbreather. What reputation you have attached to your username is not you. It's a string of characters. I'm digressing badly. I think I need a shot of whiskey to clear my head. Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If I say, "Please don't accuse me of vandalizing," that's way different than having someone else say, "You are a vandal." I'd much rather have my request floating around than someone else's accusations. Also, unless my real-world identity gets "outed," I'm not worried about my real-world reputation. But I am worried about my reputation as a WP editor. I don't want a scarlet letter on my virtual breast - and I don't deserve one. I've made mistakes in the past (we all have) I may make mistakes in the future (we all may), but I don't deserve to be bullied or harassed or hounded or whatever the heck is going on here.

I'm going to have a late lunch... and maybe have hubby make me a martini! Lightbreather (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue, my thoughts are to still repeat my original request.....basically that we all dial back a bit and take a "wait and see" approach, while not avoiding spirited discussion on content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell ANI vote

Sue, you have repeatedly made personal attacks upon me and made accusations about me. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, and I've asked you to strike the accusations. My most recent requests are here, and here and here, after you wrote: "It is vandalism to repeatedly and knowingly, break links, wipe talk pages, and place false information into a Misplaced Pages article. Lightbreather has done all of these things."

I removed your harmful posts here, here, and here, with edit summaries "Removing harmful posts per WP:TPO, WP:WIAPA accusations about and criticisms of." WP:TPO says one may remove another editor's comments if they're "harmful posts, including personal attacks." WP:WIAPA says some comments are never acceptable, including:

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
• Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:DR.

You have also accused me of making "victims" of other editors by changing or removing comments written by them - over the past months! Please either drop these accusations, or provide diffs so that I may defend myself. Your behavior constitutes bullying, and I am calling for the editors here to comment on whether or not it is appropriate to take this issue to ANI. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you take this to her talk page? This is quickly becoming disruptive to the article and it needs to stop. KonveyorBelt 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I could try, but when I've done that before, she's moved my "please stop" posts from her talk page to my talk page. Also, isn't the point of this to get feedback from other editors? As I say, I've tried repeatedly to get her to stop, but she just keeps coming at me. I think her objective is to either get me to stop participating here "voluntarily" (make it so painful, or scare the crap out of me so badly, that I just quit), or by ban or block.

I've said this before, but it needs repeating. I started on this article doing "BRD" edits (though I didn't know at the time that's what they're called). Then I was asked to discuss before I edit. If I "BRD" I'm asked to discuss, if I discuss I'm accused of being disruptive. The latest charge is WP:CRUSH. How the HECK does someone respond to that? It's basically an accusation of being civil! If I start being uncivil, I'll certainly be banned/blocked. Meanwhile - all I want to do is improve this article. We have a couple peer reviews, which I've been discussing with other editors here, rather than doing "BRD." Except for just quitting, "voluntarily," what else can I do? Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Starting duelling ANI discussions certainly isn't going to de-escalate the situation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop

This fight is doing nothing to advance the article, and I'm this close to dragging you all to ANI for tendentious editing and disrupting the article when it could be resolved elsewhere. KonveyorBelt 22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be MORE than happy to drop my complaint if she'll drop hers. Is it Wiki-kosher to suggest that? I just want to work on the article, not argue about behavior. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My comments have been edited and removed without my permission and without discussion unilaterally by a single editor. It appears that the consensus is that this behavior is acceptable. Therefore, I will be editing in other areas of Misplaced Pages where I do not have to be concerned with this issue. Be well everyone and happy editing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue, your question wasn't whether or not it is acceptable. Your question was whether people support taking LB to wp:ani on that issue which was refactoring/removal of your comment and her response. In my 36k edits worth of interactions, I've only taken one person there, so for me it is a pretty high bar and even then I didn't weigh in either way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No one is asking you to leave or not edit. It's just that this dispute is disruptive to the talk page and should be taken elsewhere. I'm fully in favor of taking the problem to a notice board, perhaps not ANI but maybe Rfc/U or something. KonveyorBelt 03:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point re: details of titles, authors, grants, etc.

While discussing the Context section in development, Anastrophe brought up a point that is worth considering when looking at other parts of the article. He said:

We don't need a recapitulation of the details of what the title and subtitle of the law are, the authors names, who provided the grants, etc, - in the body of the text. Those details are better placed in the references, it's not necessary that they be spelled out in such detail in what should be summarizing language.

This is a point worth applying to the whole article. Many of the details in the article in its present state seem unnecessary and therefore distracting.

Also, having Wikilinks to Lott's books, in addition to references, seems promotional.

Since the single-sentence paragraph at the end of the Expiration section has a dead-link reference, I think it should be deleted.

I can maybe see including the sentence about Holder - though it's five years after the ban expired - but the DEA/Leonhart sentence? I think the Obama and Holder paragraphs could be merged and better summarized. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply we should get rid of all of these, BTW. I just think we should consider them and maybe delete or de-emphasize some. Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of proposed Context section

I'm reposting the "Context" section here with my review comments. The history of this legislation is fascinating. I hadn't known most of it. I had not remembered that in the old days it was not a partisan issue, that it divided the Democrats and it divided the Republicans. Just think how the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary committee (and NRA member) Jack Brooks must have felt when he sent the bill off to the Senate and they erased its contents completely. And then put their own bill in, with an amendment to ban assault weapons. And then asked for a conference with the House. The House did not answer. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Context (3rd draft)

Write this as a Background section and name it Background and legislative history

The background needs to give:

• reasons for the law - brief, triggered by the 1989 school shooting
• brief report of the attempts to pass it in earlier legislation
• legislative history of this law - Much of the legislative history of this law was driven by this provision - lots of fireworks! Most of the history should go into the main article on the law. We'll have to work out what goes where as it gets written.

An encyclopedia article needs to record what happened (who, what, where, when, how, and why, and probably "wherefore"--consequences), and put it in historical order. The article does not need to re-argue the case.

The assault weapons ban was Title XI, Subtitle A, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A section of the ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects, especially on violent and drug-trafficking crime. The result, published in 1997, was Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The report was funded by a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant and written by research associates at the Urban Institute. Its primary authors were Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context.

The Background comes right after the lead paragraphs. They will give enough information that you do not have to identify the law here. Just start with the triggering event, the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) of January 1989.

When you use a reference in an encyclopedia article as a source for a fact, you don't need to introduce the authors or explain why they wrote the source. Here you will just use Roth and Koper as a secondary source for some of the background. Their role in the research and reports will come later in the article. In Misplaced Pages material tends to spread randomly through an article. It's important to keep it in relevant sections.

In a brief version of the report published in 1999, Roth and Koper said: "he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers."

We don't need to quote Roth and Koper here. They are just summarizing what had been said elsewhere. Just write it in your own words and use the reference as the source. I don't know whether this belongs with the legislative history of the earlier attempts or with the history of this law, wherever they started balancing.

Roth and Koper outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993 accounting for 86 deaths and 76 injuries. Among these, in January 1989 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died.

Again, don't mention Roth and Koper, though you can use the article as a source. Here's where you put a brief history of the attempts to pass federal legislation. Mention shooting events as they triggered another effort at passing the law. The focus is on the history of the legislation here.

In March 1989, President George H.W. Bush banned the import of semiautomatic rifles pending a review of their use. Lawmen said they were often outgunned, and doctors and nurses in big cities reported increases in deaths and injuries from semiautomatic weapons. In May 1989, California became the first state in U.S. to ban the sale of assault weapons. In July, the Bush administration declared the the temporary import ban to be permanent on 43 of the 50 models reviewed. The year 1989 also marked the beginning of efforts to create a federal assault weapons ban.

Why Bush banned the guns isn't needed here. Just that he did, since it is important in following the history of this bill. Just say he banned the guns in March 1989 and made the ban permanent in July. Leave out the state bans. Put this in the previous section with the history of previous attempts, in historical order.

Here is where you put the legislative history of this version of the law. This is one of the true knock-down drawn-out battles in Congress and I'm surprised it doesn't get mentioned in either article. Most of it should be in the parent article. This one needs:

• What happened in the Senate. The bill was written there, the amendment went in, was discussed and modified, and passed with a close vote.
• What happened in the house with the ban provision.
• What happened in conference committee.
• The role the White House played.

Possible references:

• Spitzer, Robert J. (2004). The Politics of Gun Control (3 ed.). CQ Press. pp. 120–126. ISBN 978-1-889119-87-8.
• Spitzer, Robert J. (4 May 2012). "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994". In Gregg Lee Carter (ed.). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law (2 ed.). ABC-CLIO. pp. 54–57. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8.
• Federal legislative information at THOMAS, the database of the Library of Congress: "THOMAS".

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. In May of that year, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

Leave most of this out. Focus on what happened in Congress and between Congress and the White House. Feinstein wasn't the author of the ban; she was chosen as sponsor this go round (along with 17 cosponsors), which is different. She wasn't in the Senate when this language began being added to bills in 1989 and 1990.

Alan Simpson, R-WY, and other senators called for tougher criminal penalties instead of gun bans. In October 1991, after a massacre in Killeen, Texas, gun control opponents pointed out that the pistols used by the gunmen were not even on the proposed list of banned weapons. Gun makers and the National Rifle Association (NRA) questioned the constitutionality of assault weapons bans. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that semi-automatic weapons were used in only 1 percent of crimes, but 2 million times a year by citizens for self defense. One year later, McIntyre said, "We are going to do what we can to make sure no gun ban becomes law." Many opponents of the ban said that Feinstein's intention in writing the ban was confiscation, an argument supported by one of her remarks in a news interview in February 1995. She said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in' - I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Leave out the last paragraph altogether.

References

1. ^ 103rd Congress (1994). "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 201–215.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
2. ^ Roth, Jeffrey A.; Koper, Christopher S. (1997). "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
3. Roth, Jeffrey A. (March 1999). "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban" (PDF). National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (NCJ 173405). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. ^ "Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production". The Pittsburgh Press. Associated Press. May 23, 1990. p. A13.
5. ^ Pazniokas, Mark (December 20, 1993). "One Gun's Journey Into A Crime". The Courant. Hartford, CT.
6. Mohr, Charles (March 15, 1989). "U.S. BANS IMPORTS OF ASSAULT RIFLES IN SHIFT BY BUSH". The New York Times.
7. ^ "State : Governor Signs Gun Law Legalizing First Ban on Assault Weapons". Los Angeles Times. May 24, 1989.
8. Rasky, Susan F. (July 8, 1989). "Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent". The New York Times.
9. Bunting, Glenn F. (November 9, 1993). "Feinstein Faces Fight for Diluted Gun Bill". Los Angeles Times.
10. Sugarmann, Josh (1994). "Reverse FIRE: The Brady Bill won't break the sick hold guns have on America. It's time for tougher measures". Mother Jones. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
11. Eaton, William J. (May 5, 1994). "Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban". Los Angeles Times.
12. Seelye, Katharine Q. (July 28, 1994). "Assault Weapons Ban Allowed To Stay in Anti-crime Measure". The New York Times.
13. "House rejects proposed ban on assault guns". The Milwaukee Sentinel. October 18, 1991. p. 15A.
14. "Senate Acts To Ban Assault Weapons: Brady Bill Still Awaiting Action". Chicago Tribune. November 18, 1993.
15. "NRA vows to retaliate over assault weapon ban". Los Angeles Times. The Baltimore Sun. May 8, 1994.
16. Dianne Feinstein (February 5, 1995). "What Assault Weapons Ban?" (Interview). Interviewed by Lesley Stahl. If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in' - I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)

Wow, StarryGrandma, when you give, you give 110 percent. Great research. I am picking up my sister from the airport tomorrow, and she will be my house-guest for at least two of the next four weeks. Feel free to edit my draft as much as you like. I think I will copy this to my sandbox and play with it as I'm able. Great review, and great advice. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

List of named, banned weapons in tabular format per peer review

Per StarryGrandma peer review of 25 OCT 2013, 3rd bulleted item under "Criteria," I have created a table of the named, banned weapons from AWB 1994. Reviewer said: "The list of banned weapons would look better as a table than a bullet list. Try to minimize bullet lists in articles. The 1999 brief summary from the NIJ is a good reference for this." Prior formal review (2007) said, "In general the article is too listy, the lists in the body of the text should be converted to prose for a smoother read."

Feedback? OK to replace list in article?

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following where the "substitute" column came from or what it means. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, North! It came from page 3 of Impacts of the Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, the brief report SG referred to in her review, which was from the report Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My thought would be to drop that column. I did a good look at the table in the source and a quick read and still don't know what they were intending to mean. Seems to be some creative move by the one author. BTW I think that the overall change is good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North. On why they included that column, the report said: "The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers." It also said "'sporterizing'" a rifle by removing its pistol grip and replacing it with a thumb-hole in the stock, for example, was sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute." The column shows "Sporter" models, so it was meant to show legal substitutes for banned weapons? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with those statements, only that's why they included the column... but I don't mind dropping it. Lightbreather (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

They also document the "copycat" weapons mentioned in your proposed background section, but I also think the column should be dropped, as it conflates things which were directly mentioned by the law, with things which were done as responses to the law, so it is not actually substituting just changing the format of the description of the law. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd recommend dropping that column. Nothing that terrible about it, IMHO it's just one source's confusing creative work and more inexplicable/confusing than useful. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Bundling" sources

I've read thousands of wikipedia articles. I've edited thousands of wikipedia articles. I've never seen multiple different sources "bundled" together so that it appears that there is only one reference for the information being cited. There are currently six sources for this information, and many more could be added, but the point is that this particular word has been a lightning-rod for tens of thousands of words spilt here in talk. When something is contentious, it is normal for multiple sources to be cited to back up the information. I've seen statements in articles with a string of a dozen or more sources attached. That alerts readers that the information sourced is important, and has been carefully vetted by editors, so that there's no misunderstanding, misdirection, misinformation, or misimpression. It also deters drive-by editors from, say, just scrubbing a word from the article that they don't like, because it doesn't look like anyone will notice. I don't recall ever seeing an article where sources are "bundled" so that it appears that there's just one source, when in fact there are many. Perhaps the argument will be readability? Sources are the bread and butter of a good article, lack of sources is the most common problem with articles. I see no reasonable rationale for "bundling" sources. Anastrophe (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the a) citation style, and b) the purpose. For example, in United States v. Lara (a featured article which has appeared on the main page), I have a string cite at fn9, which shows "George E. Hyde, A Sioux Chronicle 46-66 (1993); George Washington Kingsbury & George Martin Smith, 2 History of the Dakota Territory 1192–1196 (1915)." Both the works cited supported the exact matter cited, and the citation style (Bluebook) allows string cites. Another set of examples can be found at Menominee Tribe v. United States, an example of which is fn7, "Treaty with the Menominee, Mar. 30, 1817, 7 Stat. 153; Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d 998, 1001 (Ct. Cl. 1967); 2 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 138 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1904)." There it was used to show the statute confirming the treaty, a court case citing the treaty, and a book covering the treaty, all as sources.

I use string cites (or bundling) all the time. It is also approved at WP:BUNDLING, for non-Bluebook citation styles. I don't see an issue with it. GregJackP Boomer! 15:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That may be, and while I'd love to assume good faith, considering the past history surrounding this one, specific piece of information, and that one specific editor cannot seem to stay away from it, and that it gives the appearance of trying to minimize how well cited the information is - I remain skeptical of intent. As well, only this and one other instance of multiple cites were bundled, but others untouched. What is the threshhold for bundling? Two cites? three? Lastly, the cites were bundled under the heading ' "cosmetic" sources'. The word cosmetic in what could be construed as ironic quotes. If one had just read WP:BUNDLE and decided to employ it, I believe it would have been more natural to have written the header as "For the word cosmetic,", just like the examples therein. Am I paranoid? Why yes, I am. Again, considering the history here, it seems exceedingly ill-advised to monkey with this particular information, yet again. Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it a nice good faith effort by Lightbreather but lean against bundling. I don't like confusing / making more obscure the "GUI" for readers (1 footnote = 1 cite) or for editors. The latter is the same reason I don't like citation templates. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks to GregJackP for the thumbs-up. I have restored the bundling, but modified it somewhat - it is to be hoped in a format more pleasing to Anastrophe. As for the quotes, they aren't scare quotes, but standard when referring to a word as a word. Cosmetic sources means the sources are cosmetic, but "Cosmetic" sources means sources for the word "cosmetic." At any rate, rather than revert the bundling, it might have been changed in BRD fashion, which would be a collaborative AGF edit regardless of what one assumes my intentions might be. Lightbreather (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the grammar at work here, thanks. I didn't suggest using "Cosmetic sources". I suggested, well, exactly what I suggested, so that the word "cosmetic" isn't in quotes that could be misconstrued, since we know the dangers of ironic and scare quotes. I did do BRD, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. As I said, I don't trust your intentions, based on a well documented past surrounding this particular word. I'm curious why you bundled these six, bundled two on Verdugo, but did not bundle others. Inconsistent application added to my concern. I still reject any bundling. I don't see how it improves the article at all. Anastrophe (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Bundling is fine, so long as all multiple sources are bundled throughout. Scare quotes for cosmetic sources are not OK. GregJackP Boomer! 01:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've explained that they aren't scare quotes (see item #2 here), but if they seem like that to another editor, I think that editor should change them. There is an inactive style page that recommends italics for words as words. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me - an active style page says italics or quotes, depending. I learned quotes for words as words, but there you go. Lightbreather (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to italics. GregJackP Boomer! 04:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious why you bundled these six, bundled two on Verdugo, but did not bundle others. Inconsistent application added to my concern. Anastrophe (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there is one other sentence with two citations, one with three. I'm not sure, but I think I bundled the three before (they're links to bills), but they were lost in rollback. I could be mis-remembering. Verdugo? Do you mean Navegar? I was practicing doing bundling. If y'all want me to go bundle some other citations, ask me. Two or three don't seem too distracting to me, but three or four and more do. Apparently, it does to others, too, because I didn't invent bundling. Lightbreather (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"I was practicing doing bundling.". I think most would agree it's best not to practice on the live wiki, and instead practice in your sandbox. As I said, inconsistent application added to my concern - again wrt to the history I've already detailed - which puts certain edits by certain editors under intense microscopic scrutiny. I'm sure most editors would agree that the scrutiny is necessary, again in context of the history at play. Hey cool, I didn't use the word "you". Anastrophe (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is cool, and I appreciate it. Also, I did practice in my sandbox, with the Navegar citations (which were already bundled - by me - but not in a bulleted or line-break format) and with the "cosmetic"/cosmetic citations. Then I moved the results here.

"I'm sure most editors would agree," is speaking for others, which is alarming to me, whether true or not. If one is speaking for others, does he/she have some position of authority? If they're not speaking for others, why speak as if they are? I should think in most cases we editors should speak for ourselves.

I would prefer to move on. Lightbreather (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"I'm sure most editors would agree" is a common colloquial expression, and as most editors are aware, it doesn't mean the speaker is speaking for others, it means that the speaker is expressing his personal impression. This editor is not alarmed by common vernacular, nor is this editor particularly concerned if other editors choose to dramatically conflate the meaning of a common construct for the purpose of faux concern or faux indignation. This editor actually hopes to have a weekend uninterrupted by POV edit pushing in this article. I'm sure most editors would agree that that would be nice. Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and my concern is real. Please stop speculating about my intentions. Lightbreather (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about editor Lightbreather. I did not speculate about editor Lightbreather's intentions. Someone is confused. Anastrophe (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO in recent weeks Lightbreather seems to have shifted into a more cautious approach. The we BOLD on this particular edit but IMHO it could be seen as a non-contentoius area. IMHO we should try /give them a "fresh start" here. Lightbreather, in view of event s a few months ago, it might not be too unreasonable to be concern that on the particular (contended item) that you goal might have been to reduct the visibility of the amount of source-support that there is for the statement/term. Anastrophe, can we try a try-a-fresh start mode where you might express that concern in a low key way and move on to the direct question at hand. And the question at hand here is bundling or not bundling those citations, or whether or not we use bundling in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion is to not use bundling. (but I'm not strongly opposed to it) It's somewhat unusual, and on a contentious article, does affect the in line display of the sources and amount of sources. And does scramble the normal reader/editor "GUI" where once cite = one cite. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I prefer it, but that is because Bluebook (my preferred citation system) is well suited to it. I'm not married to it though, and can go either way. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said a couple days ago, I changed the citations to two single followed by a bundle of the others/more. Perhaps this is a good compromise for this article? Up to three source citations singly, four or more list the first two separately and bundle the rest. (GJP changed "cosmetic" to cosmetic. Thanks.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Strike 'compliance' section

The compliance section actually has nothing to do with compliance with the ban. If information can be developed regarding manufacturers who did not comply with the ban, or civilians somehow obtaining banned weapons during the ban, then it would have some meaning. Currently it's just two quotes about whether the ban really banned what it claimed to ban - which is unrelated to compliance. I recommend striking it. Anastrophe (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Compliance section in its current form, and here is its text (sans citations):

Following the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action referred to the features affected by the ban as cosmetic. Similarly, the Violence Policy Center released a statement saying, in part, "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts."

The Compliance section is meaningful because what manufacturers did to make firearms in compliance with the ban was to make "cosmetic" changes. This fact is not stated elsewhere in the article, and unless it is, I disagree with striking the section. Agree that it needs development, including other compliance issues if they're sourced. Lightbreather (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If only the section actually said what you interpret it to mean, then yes, it would be meaningful. I've no objection to it being developed, but in its current state, it does not specifically address compliance. It is only two disembodied quotes, with zero actual content from reliable sources discussing compliance. It should be struck until it is actually about what it claims to be about. Anastrophe (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"he gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts" doesn't require our interpretation, and "If only the section actually said what you interpret it to mean" is not civil. For the ?th time, please stop with the "you" statements. Lightbreather (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe (10 AUG 2013): "The fact that manufacturers were able to build guns *in compliance with the law* by altering cosmetic features of the guns, means that cosmetic features were what were banned."

I suggest that the sources stay and Compliance be addressed - here or in the Effects section (renamed as explained below). Lightbreather (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, our current review mentions the Compliance section. The reviewer said its contents don't reflect its title, and she suggests moving it to the Effects section. She goes on to say: "Rename this 'Effect of the assault weapons ban' or 'Impact of the ban.' There was research into the effects before the expiration of the law." I think that's a workable solution. Keep the content, lose the one section, rename the other section. Lightbreather (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on article in general

In my review I said that the article did not have problems overall with point of view, but that the article lacked organization, and that where things were in the article was awkward and leads to undue emphasis.

The current discussion about the word "cosmetic" is an example of this. More on this below.

Don't be discouraged because a lot is still missing from the article. That's true throughout Misplaced Pages. We have 4 million articles but only 18 thousand good articles. But an article is expected to grow and improve, and this one appears stuck. I will propose more organizational structure if that will help. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on "cosmetic"

Encyclopedia articles are written differently from book chapters, newspaper articles, or magazines article that cover the same topics. For those the author often wants something attention grabbing in early sentences, and readers expect they will be treated to the author's point of view. Encyclopedia articles aren't written that way. They are written for a wide audience, many opinions, many backgrounds in the subject. Think of a kid in New Zealand writing a paper. Provide information that someone in London or Hong Kong would need to understand what is going on.

In this article the very first sentence immediately following the lead paragraph uses a word that seems to be so controversial that it requires multiple quotes in multiple or one large footnote. It doesn't belong in that position in the article.

The word "cosmetic" came under discussion very early in the history of the law, so it is important to include it. It was used in different ways by different people. First it referred to the differences in otherwise similar gun designs that manufacturers targeted to different buyers, those who wanted hunting weapons and those who wanted a military-appearing weapon. There was the implication that the appearance of the weapon itself might increase its use in violence. However commentators often used "cosmetic" was to mean "merely cosmetic", implying that the differences didn't matter and there was no reason to ban weapons based on appearance. In both cases the use of the word can be emotionally loaded, and doesn't belong in the first sentence.

Put it in after the paragraph of description, along with both ways the word was used. Explain that it was used in both ways; don't leave the discussion to the footnotes. It doesn't need all those sources, but I understand this is a word that has given problems in the history of the article. So leave them for now. Whether it is many sources, whether it is bundled doesn't matter at this point in the evolution of the article. The entire rest of the section has no references whatsoever! Get looking things up. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, emphatically. The word cosmetic is and was used by partisans on both sides of the debate - yes, to varying degrees, but still used bare in the majority of sources. The word, in fact, is not controversial. At all. The "controversy" exists on this talk page, and has been generated by a single editor. There are far more than six sources supportive of the word - sixteen different sources, as I recall, were provided by another editor after some trivial googling. The reason it has six sources is that it was apparently the only way to keep one editor from scrubbing the word from the article. Essentially, it stands as a bargain, since consensus is overwhelming - both amongst editors and the majority of reliable sources - that the features were cosmetic; strong sourcing is the only mechanism available to prevent a single editor from removing information by fiat from the article. A wikipedia article doesn't include information regarding "controversy" that doesn't exist outside of wikipedia; we report on what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources say nothing little of any controversy surrounding the word "cosmetic". I repeat: the word is not notably controversial - again, multiple sources - both pro-rights and pro-control - have referred to the features as cosmetic. The controversy has been manufactured on this talk page by a single editor. While it would be a horrible slog to go through, I strongly recommend reading the entire history in the archives surrounding this word. And review this editor's edit history, most particularly two instances, a year apart, where this editor simply removed the word by fiat, before becoming genuinely active on the article. There is a problem here. It is not whether the word "cosmetic" is controversial, or its position in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are the two edits Anastrophe referred to:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&oldid=519287567
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=567874306&oldid=567790080

In neither edit was the word "scrubbed" from the article. It was removed from the Criteria section, and left in the Compliance section, since what manufacturers did to comply with the law was to make "cosmetic" changes.

Now let's move on with the CURRENT discussion, because I am NOT the only editor (evidence given below) who has ever questioned this word or, more importantly, how it's used in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If I read the editors here correctly (who, from what I've seen, mostly just want an accurate, informative neutral article that stays on topic), they see the word "cosmetic" used by folks on both sides of the debate, and consider it informative, and are suspicious that efforts to remove are POV. The reason why both sides have been using the word it is that objectively speaking, about the only thing more "powerful" about banned configurations is a larger magazine size, and that is an attribute of an attachment (the magazine) rather than the firearm. Knowledgeable folks on the banning side tend to say "cosmetic" to say that it didn't go very far and prefer expansion into banning features that would take in more everyday firearms. "Anti-banning" folks say it to say that it invents a non-existent class of firearms, deliberately sowing confusion with the actual (already illegal) military firearms and inventing a "type" of firearm whose defining "distinctions" are only cosmetic. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Whew! If so, put some of this content in the article, which needs more content. I only said not right in the first sentence of that section, since its a commentary on the description, not the description itself. And to put in more about it, not less. I thought the cosmetic difference was the stock mostly. What about adding a picture of a comparable sporting rifle as comparison? That would make it clearer. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You make excellent points, StarryGrandma. Use of the term is controversial. Even if it has been used by opponents and (some) proponents of gun control, they've used it to support different arguments. When other sources chose or choose not to use the word, that choice means something. Then there are the reliable, verifiable sources who have expressly disputed its use (sources 9,10,11). Further, one can study this article's Archive 1 and Archive 2, plus this discussion and others on the assault weapon talk page, for more proof that it's use is controversial. (Unless maybe one wants to argue that every editor who has disputed how it's used in this and other articles is not a good-faith editor.) In other words, to say that the word is used by opponents and (some) proponents and therefore makes it "The" authoritative qualifier for the word "features," and that mentioning the controversy is tantamount to POV pushing is untrue.

And like you, I don't object to its use, but its use so early in the article and without explaining the controversy. Calathan mentioned this, too, in his comments on Oct. 1 (a few paragraphs down; starts with "I noticed this article linked from ANI...") Much of this repeated conflict could be minimized by putting the ban in context and presenting its basic provisions before launching into the details currently presented immediately after the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lightbreather. While I wouldn't call the first two of those three "sources" (they are advocacy pieces by pro-ban advocates, and IMHO weqasel-worded) I think that they do reinforce that there is some dispute with the term "cosmetic". (BTW, these was also some support for the "cosmetic" characterization (albeit without that word) by pro-ban persons in there as well. I don't know where that leaves us. On things like this I tend to say "provide facts, and when in doubt, dial back on characterizations" but I think that some summary of this aspect is useful and informative. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the Provisions have been moved ahead of the Criteria. I don't understand the rationale, regardless of the peer review. What sense does it make to explicate on the manner in which Xa is banned, before explaining exactly what Xa actually is, and why Xa is actually just cosmetically different from other Xbcdefghijk that are not banned?

"The Federal Hawley-Jensen control valve ban"

"Provisions: The law bans any valve identified by the law as a Hawley-Jensen control valve, as well as any stopcocks, flanges, or other accessories to the Hawley-Jensen control valve."

"Criteria: This law defines Hawley-Jensen control valves as those valves that appear similar to unregulated control valves. A Hawley-Jensen control valve provides back-pressure moderation of flammable fluids. Hawley-Jensen control valves perform the same function as other back-pressure moderated control valves of flammable fluids, but are cosmetically different from other back-pressure moderated control valves. The actual functional features of the Hawley-Jensen control valves are identical to other control valves. This law bans only Hawley-Jensen control valves".

Makes no sense to me. We should explain what is being banned before we go into the details of how whatever it is is banned. Anastrophe (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a fallacious argument to me. Lightbreather (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Which fallacy would that be, specifically? Before one talks about actions pertaining to X, one has to define X first, if the definition of X isn't patent. Well, one doesn't have to, but it's clumsy, confusing, and poor writing if one does so. Anastrophe (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Curiously, the edit that moved the provisions before the criteria used an edit summary stating "Moved here to after lead per peer reviews Oct. 1 and Oct. 25". Can you provide a link to the Oct 1 peer review? The Peer review linked to at the top of was submitted Oct 24, and nowhere states that the provisions should precede the criteria. Anastrophe (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to Calathan's Oct. 1 review above. Formal request for peer review dated Oct. 24, review dated Oct. 25. I just finished supper and am now visiting with my houseguest. Plan to resume discussion tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Calathan's comments were not part of peer review. Neither did his comments suggest that 'provisions' should be before 'criteria', only that the placement of information within criteria wasn't so great. I suggest putting Criteria back before provisions, where it belongs in the logical flow. I'm not going to do it, even though the current order is obviously wrong, because I don't want to be accused of edit warring.

I didn't think so at first either, but another editor said they were part of a review and linked to a discussion here on Oct. 1. I have re-moved the Provisions section back to after the Critera section per SG's request. I'm also hoping that she'll sketch an outline of how she thinks the sections should be ordered (including any to-be-developed sections). Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That said, I should note that my comment immediately after Calathan's in that thread explicitly agreed that more in-depth discussion of the controversy around the word "cosmetic" was needed. So, lest I be accused of being quietly hypocritical and hoping nobody notices, I'll aver that it appears I'm a hypocrite, when comparing those comments with my arguments above that there 'really is no controversy'. The controversy is whether the cosmetic differences make the weapons more dangerous, and whether it was "wrong" for manufacturers to comply with the law by making cosmetic changes that rendered the weapons 'not banned'. Yes, there are sources that say that the features were not cosmetic - but they are a small minority (setting aside that reality tends to trump belief, and the banned weapons were no more lethal than non-banned weapons). It became a talking point, and essentially a point of embarrassment for early supporters of the ban, when they realized that the ban actually accomplished very little. But I digress. I repeat however, that the majority of sources - the overwhelming majority of sources on both the pro-rights and pro-control side agree that the features that were banned were cosmetic, and that is what we base the article on. I know of nobody in the US, before, during, or after the FAWB, who was bayonetted to death, or of any attempts to bayonet someone to death. Ignoring that the ban didn't ban bayonets. Only bayonet mounts (which could easily be circumvented with Duct Tape). Anastrophe (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Having gone into this in great detail before, I don't wish to again right now except to say: I disagree that the controversy is what you say it is (above), and I disagree that the "overwhelming majority" of pro-gun and pro-control sources agree that the banned features were cosmetic. As someone said months ago, a Google search and count of links with "cosmetic" and "features" in the same source isn't probative. Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And as was pointed out back then, it is not a raw google search at play here. The sixteen cites that were generated were each different. In fact, this editor hasn't ever done a raw google search for counts. Because I know that's meaningless. perhaps the better characterization is that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to the features as cosmetic. A possible minority of pro-control sources say they are not cosmetic - that remains to be fully investigated - but as we all know, we don't give undue weight to minority opinions. Anastrophe (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to that discussion, which was about whether or not it was appropriate to include the word in the Criteria section (not whether or not it should be removed from the whole article). One editor said, "16 was what I came up with in a few minutes. The actual search yielded over 16000!" To which another replied, "Raw google (or other search engine) counts are not considered probative, however. There's far too much noise that gets scooped up even with the best filtering of the results."

I think I've asked this before, but am I to understand that for a source to count as not-cosmetic they actually have to say "not cosmetic"? If they say simply "features" or "certain features," do we as editors assume that they count them as "cosmetic," too? Is that the editorial consensus on Misplaced Pages, or on this article? Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If a source is being used to show "cosmetic" is wrong, it must specifically address the cosmetic issue by saying not-cosmetic or something. However, if a preponderance of sources describe the features without the "cosmetic" modifier, then our primary description should shift to match. However, we must be very careful of WP:OR and WP:RS/AC on this issue (in both POVs). I would possibly support breaking the first sentence up by saying "semi automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as cosmetic by both gun rights advocates, and gun control advocates, but some gun control advocates have disagreed with this characterization." We could then even have a small section with the reasonings of why people consider them cosmetic (and as North? pointed out, pro/anti both come to the word cosemtic, via different logic), along with a statement of who disagrees with that assesment. (Within this section, WP:WEIGHT may be problematic, as neutrally describing each sides views may result in WP:UNDUE coverage of them. This problem extends to the overall article, where it would be easy to unbalance the article with an in depth discussion of if the features were cosmetic or not, which is really irrelevant to the ban itself and which firearms were actually banned. Due to these potential issues, I could easily see myself falling into the camp of "should not be included" as well, so any additions in this direction would need to have a good consensus developed before insertion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY says, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." I like your suggestion, but would say: "semi automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagreed with the term." Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm near-neutral and worn out on the "cosmetic" issue. On one side, both sides have used the term similarly (albeit with opposite goals) and it represents both coverage of what they said and is somewhat informative. On the other hand, I think you've shown that it is contested by some, and also I generally say "when in doubt, avoid characterizations and give information instead". Overall I lean a tiny bit towards keeping it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I hear you North, friend. I want to say again, though, that I never pushed for removing the word from the article, but from the Criteria section. Then, I dropped that argument when it was clear that the current editorial majority believes it belongs in that section. My response to that is, if it's going to be in that section, then it shouldn't be in the first sentence, or even the first paragraph. The first sentence currently reads at grade-level 16, the first paragraph at grade-level 15. The section currently tries to introduce "assault weapon," "semi-automatic," "cosmetic," "assault rifle" and "fully automatic" all in the first sentence/paragraph. Talk about conflated meaning! There should be separate, simple paragraph explaining semi-automatic, assault rifle, and fully automatic before introducing the terms assault weapon and cosmetic. And there should be an explanation of who uses cosmetic and why ASAP after introducing that term. Lightbreather (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Those sound like good ideas. I think that some folks have concerns because a few months ago (IMHO and vaguely/briefly speaking) you did a big bundling of work on good ideas with a lot POV shifting work rapid fire on a contentious article. And back then you essentially said that you feel that it has big POV problems (thus saying that it needs a big POV shifting) And concerns about: what's next from Lightbreather? I think that most folks see this as an article that could use improvements (where it sounds like you have some good ideas) and NOT a big POV shifting. May I suggest to everyone a fresh start all around? Including Lightbreather, slowly work in / test fire some of those ideas as edits where they don't collide with a previous conversation. And everybody else, give Lightbreather a fresh start and see how it goes? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I went back through all six archives and searched for the words "bias," "neutral," and "POV," and guess what? I haven't used them nearly as often as one might assume from reading comments about me. In fact, some other editors use them much more than I do. But especially important, I have not made regular, broad criticisms about the whole article. Most of my edits have been neutral or gnome. I absolutely like the fresh start idea. Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

'nuff said. Let's move on, fresh start. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Let's start the fresh start by shelving further discussion and edits to the article surrounding "cosmetic". The minor commentary by editors without a dog in this fight isn't so strong that there is any need to change what's already there. It's cited, and I've dropped my arguments about the cite bundling. We are good to go. No further changes to "cosmetic", since it's a hornets nest, it's been discussed ad nauseum, consensus by sources and editors is palpable (remember, consensus doesn't mean that every last editor agrees). There's simply no need, for the N-to-the-Nth time to even be rehashing this. So, all agreed, we can leave the text about "cosmetic" alone, and work on improving other more significant issues with the article, such as the history/background, better explanation of compliance or lack thereof, and more? I'm totally in favor of dropping the discussion on this word, since it's been flogged to death. Anastrophe (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no minor editors in this discussion, so no commentary is minor. This is a subject that has come up over and over again, and not on account of any one editor. Also, this is a collaborative process, not a dog fight. Two peers currently question how the word is used in this article. This is not surprising considering that the subject has come up before they or I ever laid eyes on it. The proposal Gaijin made earlier practically matches the changes that were made on Sept. 27 by BRD process - before the rollback.

1. Nov. 12 (Gaijin): "semi automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as cosmetic by both gun rights advocates, and gun control advocates, but some gun control advocates have disagreed with this characterization."

2. Nov. 12 (Lightbreather): "semi-automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagree with the term."

There is no consensus to leave it as is... there is a consensus to make this small but important change (and only part of what was actually discussed). A fresh start shouldn't be contingent upon giving up an edit that others agree to or with. Also, a fresh start isn't just about my behavior. It's about the whole team's conduct toward each other. Gaijin? North? Lightbreather (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"There are no minor editors in this discussion, so no commentary is minor." An editor intentionally contrives to warp what I say, which is awfully cute. I mis-phrased it, I meant the minor concerns expressed by those editors - neither of which rise to the level of blaring alarms and flashing lights this talk page has had to deal with going on four months now. Apparently the "fresh start" we are to have is to pretend that four months of discussion on this already settled matter no longer exists, so that we can flog it just a little bit more (translation: endlessly). No. This rises to a new level of disruption - not the immediate, crazy-making disruption of editor Saltyboatr a month ago, but instead disruption festering like a cancer. Here we are - four months later - talking about the word cosmetic, with the insistence that a settled matter isn't settled, because one editor says it's not settled. The peer review, the formal peer review, made no mention of the word cosmetic. And I quote, again: "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it" - emphasis mine. This new discussion of cosmetic has only come about because one editor keeps bringing it up. Enough. Anastrophe (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, on things like this, people (including those who don't want to spend a lot of time figuring it out) like clarity / being committal on exactly what change you are proposing. I.E. exactly what in the current article would be changed and to what. It may seem obvious to you, but even to me (who is somewhat close to this) it isn't. Without that it's like (inadvertently) asking them to write you a blank check. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, North. I'm proposing changing the current first sentence of the Criteria section:

"Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic."

To what Gaijin and I were discussing yesterday:

"Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagree with the term."

I don't care if "cosmetic" is in quotes or italics, but I think we should agree which we're going to use in the article when defining words/terms or referring to words as words - and then make the whole article consistent. (I think it uses both styles right now.) Also, I'd prefer to give the three sources given before, but if y'all want to lop one off, I'll lop one. Lightbreather (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to start using quote marks, the top candidate for that list would be "assault weapon", highly controversial because it is used as if it were an actual type of firearm. Unlike "assault rifle" it has no real meaning and so it is subject to having new meanings made up to suit anyone's agenda. For example, the pistol configurations that police routinely carry when they are buying donuts were banned as "assault weapons" under this ban due to magazine size. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

absolutely agree. Scare quotes, or scare italics are entirely inappropriate. In the current wording everything is more than adequately cited. In the proposed wording, things are attributed to proponents/opposition. There is absolutely no need to water the word down with quotes or italics (and as North rightly points out, there are MANY other terms orf art in this article that could receive the same treatment). further, Lightbreather, although I could support the new wording, you overstate my position by saying there is not consensus for the current wording. I am perfectly happy where it is, but I would accept a different wording as well. That should not count as a vote against the current consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see them as scare quotes and I've never heard of scare italics, but OK. Forget the quotes or italics then. What about the text, which is what was proposed last night and practically matches what BRD edits accomplished on Sep. 27... before the rollback. Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

They both look OK with me (new and old), the new one slightly better. I'm assuming that you mean to keep the references that are currently in there. I'd consider 2 or those 3 new sources to be low grade (op eds by advocates) I 'spose that they are suitable (albeit primary) to establish the "disputed" statement that they are used with, but it would be nice to stick to higher quality / more objective sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, North. I consider at least two of the pro-cosmetic sources very biased. One, David Kopel's, IS an opinion piece. The other, by Jacob Sullum, puts his every use (12) of "assault weapon" in scare quotes throughout his article. When I brought this up in August, another editor said: "That a reliable source believes something or has a bias does not invalidate that source in any manner whatsoever. Misplaced Pages's foundation is reliable sources, not editor's opinions as to what the reliable sources do or do not believe." Still, I am willing to drop one of the not-cosmetic sources if it will help to keep the peace.

Thanks again for proposing a fresh start! I appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias does not make sources unreliable. Misplaced Pages:BIASED. WSJ and Reason are both clearly reliable sources, that have strong editorial controls. (though the opinion is still an opinion, but the facts presented in the opinion are still facts backed by an RS). On the other hand, the "not-cosmetic" sources are WP:PRIMARY WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources, which dramatically reduces their value as a reliable source. In this particular case, they may be acceptable, because we are using the source to merely source "person X who self published Y, said Z". In particular those sources are unacceptable for anything other than statements about what those people themselves believe. Any statements about 3rd parties, or objective facts are not reliable. As the VPC is otherwise a notable commenter on gun issues, we can use their primary self published documents to source their own opinions (which must be presented as opinions), but nothing else. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, responding only to Lightbreather) Yes, I 'spose those are biased too. But they appear to be more fact laden vs. assertion / appeal to emotion-laden. BTW, I tend to put quote marks around the word "assault weapon" (attribute it as being in the context of a particular conversation or law), but I don't do it to make or emphasize a point, I do it because I would consider a statement without those to be an implicit statement that such defines a type of gun, which is a false statement, and I don't want to make a false statement. "Cosmetic" is more a matter of opinion. On the general note, the official wp:rs specifies some "floor" criteria and does not actual reliability. In practice (such as at the reliable source noticeboard) criteria defining actual reliability (e.g. objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it) tend to get looked at. Since the statement that they are supporting is merely the "disputed" statement, I don't have an objection to either of them in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 or North: Would one of you please make the edit? Sue brought me before ANI while you two and I were close to an agreement. It is the addition of a simple, sourced WP:VERIFIABILITY sentence - and a restore of a BRD edit of Sept. 27. I am not trying to remove the word from this section, just to say that reliable sources disagree with it. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagree with the term." This is inaccurate. It is biased. It's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The term has been used by non-partisan sources primarily. It is not just opponents of the ban who characterized the features as cosmetic. The VPC, a proponent of the ban, referred to the features as cosmetic. We can bastardize it if we like - "These features have been described as 'not cosmetic' by some proponents of the ban, but opponents disagree with that description". However, we need to be accurate and not give undue weight. This is an accurate wording, without forcing partisan characterizations on it: "These features have been described as 'cosmetic'; a small minority disagree with the term."Anastrophe (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"These features have been described as 'cosmetic'; ...." removes "by opponents and some proponents of the ban" Why? A count of the sources show that many reliable, verifiable opponents of the ban use "cosmetic" when talking about it, and also that some proponents use the word when talking about it, too. Further, saying that "a small minority disagree with the term" implies that a "large majority" agree with the term. The evidence presented does not support that conclusion, unless one simply compares a count of "cosmetic" vs. "not cosmetic" sources and ignores all the sources who simply don't use the word. And it is WP:OR to assume that not using the word means support of or opposition to the term. This counter-proposal by Anastrophe does not improve the article, it simply presents the same POV it currently has but in a different way. Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, my proposal doesn't "remove" "by opponents and some proponents of the ban", it leaves out editor Lightbreather's attempts to add a characterization that it as a partisan split. I'm not basing it on raw count - however, when the vast majority of sources present one perspective, and a very small minority present another perspective, you can't just say that it doesn't matter. The large majority of reliable sources characterize them as cosmetic. A few reliable, non-self-published source have characterized the features as "not cosmetic". One of those sources has characterized them as both cosmetic and non-cosmetic, so we must reject that source completely since it's inconsistent. Hell, even president Clinton characterized the features as cosmetic in a Radio address during his term (read transcript last night; don't have the URL with me). Editor lightbreather wishes to give undue weight to a small minority opinion. There is no OR on this editor's part, unless reviewing sources now magically constitutes OR. Editor lightbreather's agenda as stated above is to change a neutrally presented POV to give undue weight to a minority opinion from a minority of sources. This matter should simply be shut down at this point, WP:UNDUE has long since passed. Here we are. Four months later. Bargaining over a settled matter. Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe , I believe Lightbreather's argument is that there is some pool of sources which do not take an explicit stance on cosmetic vs non-cosmetic, and just call them "features" or some such, and that those sources must be taken into account when establishing what the majority says. (Ie 100 sources talking about the bill. 90 say "features". 9 say "cosmetic" 1 says "not cosmetic". She thinks we are looking at the 9 vs 1 and ignoring the 90) The policy statement may be true (weighting what sources say that don't address a topic is certainly risking WP:OR), but as those sources have not been provided by her, then no determination can be made either by "counting" (which we all agree is not valid), nor by the individual analysis of each source to see if it is legal/media/academic/activist and primary/secondary/tertiary/etc which would be needed to apply appropriate WP:WEIGHT and develop our consensus. So of the sources we have reviewed, we are indeed in the "vast majority" situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, did your mean 100 vs. 1,000? North8000 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

indeed. fixed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a few sources that say that the features were cosmetic:

1. Rossi, Peter Henry (1 February 2008). Armed and Considered Dangerous. Transaction Publishers. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-202-36242-7. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
2. Wilson, Harry L. (2007). Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7425-5348-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
3. Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Cato Institute. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-933995-25-0. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
4. Shally-Jensen, Michael (31 December 2010). Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues. ABC-CLIO. p. 509. ISBN 978-0-313-39205-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
5. Patrick, Brian Anse (2010). Rise of the Anti-media: In-forming America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-7391-1886-3. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
6. Beck, Glenn; Balfe, Kevin (22 September 2009). Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government. Threshold Editions. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-4391-6683-3. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
7. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary (1994). Assault weapons: a view from the front lines : hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, on S. 639 ... and S. 653 ... August 3, 1993. U.S. G.P.O. pp. 185–186. ISBN 978-0-16-046100-2. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
8. Carter, Gregg Lee (1 January 2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-85109-760-9. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
9. Krouse, William J. (2012). Gun Control Legislation. DIANE Publishing. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1-4379-4125-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
10. Chu, Vivian S. (August 2010). Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border. DIANE Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4379-2914-0. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
11. Allen, George (January 2006). George Allen: A Senator Speaks Out on Liberty, Opportunity, and Security. Xulon Press. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-9769668-1-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
12. Spitzer, Robert J. (4 May 2012). "Assault Weapons". In Gregg Lee Carter Ph.D. (ed.). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 148–149. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
13. Feldman, Richard (16 May 2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-118-13100-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
14. Westwood, David (1 January 2005). Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-85109-401-1. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
15. Brown, Peter Harry; Abel, Daniel G. (15 June 2010). Outgunned: Up Against the NRA-- The First Complete Insider Account of the Battle Over Gun Control. Free Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-4516-0353-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
16. Bunch, Will (31 August 2010). The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama. HarperCollins. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-06-200875-6. Retrieved 10 August 2013.

That's from multiple points of view as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Counting references that use the word cosmetic is not enough. The content of those references and their multiple points of view matter and deserve a place in the article.

Spitzer's article cited does not say the differences are cosmetic. What he says is:

Critics of the proposed new regulations of assault weapons argued that it was difficult to produce an acceptable definition of what constitutes an assault weapon. They also noted that the firing process for many hunting rifles was the same as that of military-style assault weapons, rendering the distinction between legitimate semi-automatic hunting rifles and allegedly illegitimate assault weapons merely cosmetic.

— Spitzer, Robert J. (2012). "Assault Weapons". In Gregg Lee Carter (ed.). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law (2 ed.). ABC-CLIO. pp. 53–54. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.

(By StarryGrandma)

I know that's what he said, that's why I put it there, genius. Now what critics was he addressing? The pro-constitutional side or the anti-constitutional side? Take your time. Make sure you sign in on the proper account before answering, too--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry my signature didn't get copied over. Not addressing critics, describing what they were arguing. Why not put some of this content into the article? StarryGrandma (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, enough time has already been wasted on this article about an expired piece of legislation that served no purpose other than to criminalize and marginalize law-abiding citizens. The anti-freedom goal is clear, they just don't want people to have any firearms period and this bill was an easy way to begin chipping away at that. Feelgood legislation and the epitome of symbolism over substance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No mater what your opinions are of it, it is still notable and needs an article. Let me remind you that this is not a forum. KonveyorBelt 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that from. Sure it is notable, but certain people have been displaying an agenda of sorts in trying to twist the facts which in turn takes up the time of other editors who have more important things to work on. This argument has been going on for months. The consensus being that this legislation targetted cosmetic features. The folks who obviously know nothing about the firearms in question want to cherry pick and exclude sources that show how useless this law was with regard to crime.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Konveyor Belt, how should one editor respond when another writes the kinds of things Mike Searson just wrote? He sarcastically called StarryGrandma "genius," and also suggested that she's using multiple accounts to comment here. He has been rude to me before, too. He once said I was too emotional to edit firearms-related pages, which is sexist. (Also, considering how quickly he jumps to anger, it's hypocritical.) The way this discussion is unfolding reminds me exactly of what happened to me when I became active here three months ago. First try some objective arguments, and if your opponent doesn't stand down - attack their character. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There it goes again. I made no such insinuation that she was using multiple accounts. I was referring to her unsigned comment above. But guilty consciences make the loudest noises, don't they? I don't believe I ever said you were too emotional, just that you did not know anything about firearms. I'm not angry, either, but if you want to believe that, go ahead,--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Make sure you log into the proper account can easily be read as such an accusation imo. If there is a proper account to log into, then there is an implied improper account to log into as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin. As for the "emotional" issue, here's what was said, and by whom: "Perhaps she could be useful in other areas on Misplaced Pages, but she is too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related." by Mike Searson 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC) on ANI, 12 votes down in this discussion.

I realized that some of my comments were based on my erroneous impression that the proposed change was just to add the "some disagree" statement. But now I realized my error and see that it is to also dial back the "cosmetic" sentence itself. I think that that moves me from the "OK with it" to the "mildly oppose as written" column. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPA now deleting/altering talk-page comments that concerns edits to this article and its talk page. Because that is the focus of the ANI discussion, I'm posting this link, to alert interested editors who are not already aware of it. — Mudwater 12:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Compromise on cosmetic

As I acknowledged earlier this week, I've been hypocritical on the issue of the word cosmetic. I've vacillated between acknowledging that there is disagreement - even suggesting that the specifics be expanded in their own section - and on the other hand suggested that the sources are so overwhelmingly in the 'they're cosmetic' column that there's no uncertainty to even be considered or mentioned.

That's not right. It's not a fair accounting. Yes, a minority of sources bristle(d) that the features weren't cosmetic. However, the minority accounting does not rise (fall?) to the level of flat-earthers vs round globers. There are reliable sources that show that some take issue with the characterization that the features banned were cosmetic. That there is disagreement is the notable characteristic, not whether the features were/are cosmetic or not. Our duty in writing this encyclopedia is to provide the information impartially, so that the reader may be informed.

'Warm and fuzzy' is not in my online DNA, at least when it comes to political issues. I humbly acknowledge that I have a strong command of the language, and I can wield it fairly ruthlessly, and sometimes cruelly. I have been ruthless and cruel, there's no way to dance around that, and I regret it and I apologize to Lightbreather for it. In my offline existence, I'm mild-mannered, to the point that I've been referred to not infrequently as "laid-back". I'll pause here for the bewilderment to subside.

The salient issue with regard to the criteria section is whether we state baldly as fact-without-uncertainty that the features were cosmetic - as the article currently does - or if make clear that it is not a matter of scientific fact vs fiction, it is instead a matter of political opinion, and not a characterization without uncertainty in the sources. At the same time, based on the extant sourcing, we have to step lightly on overstating one position (cosmetic), while likewise not giving undue weight to what is, in fact, a minority opinion amongst the sources - but the existence of a minority opinion must be acknowledged, because again, it is not at the level of flat-earthers.

All that preamble behind, now to my proposal. I'm not handing this down like God to Moses, I'm just making a proposal - my peers may embrace it, reject it, alter it, and I look forward to whatever becomes of it. It's definitely not perfect, and I'm writing it off top of my head right now, so I expect that the reception will be some mix of all of the above, with refinements to come. Cool beans, that's how wikipedia works.

"Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain features in common with fully-automatic assault rifles. Fully automatic firearms have long been heavily regulated and restricted in the United States, and were not the subject of this ban. The firearms banned under this law fired one round (bullet) for each trigger pull, as opposed to fully-automatic firearms that fire continuously on a single trigger pull.

Because the banned firearms functioned identically to other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned, many considered the differentiating features to be cosmetic, rather than functional; this remains a matter of some debate."

etc. etc., with later further exploration of the well-sourced disagreement that remains. It acknowledges that it's not a black and white distinction among the sources, while not specifically calling out partisan affiliations, or giving undue weight specifically to the minority opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Because the banned firearms functioned identically to other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned, many most considered the differentiating features to be cosmetic, rather than functional; this remains a matter of some limited debate."

To emphasize appropriate weight. Most sources consider the features to be cosmetic, and the debate is rather limited (especially since the law has expired). GregJackP Boomer! 06:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I like where this is going. As a sidebar point, I think that " functioned identically to other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned" is a bit of an overreach in a non-relevant direction, and a mis-fire. While it needs better writing than I'm doing here, the gist of it is that the features defining a banned firearm do not increase the power, lethality / killing capability of the firearm and so are called cosmetic in that respect. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Requests for peer review
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles