Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 6 July 2018

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article AR-15 style rifle is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBGC). The current restrictions are: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit. Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Editors who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AR-15–style rifle 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Sports This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics 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.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles (Sports) Requested articles (Association football) Requested articles (Association football women) Requested articles (Motor sports) Requested articles (Estonian sportspeople) Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status. Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required. * Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show." Expand : Professional sports (crucial article explaining the salaried undertaking of sports) * Sport industry (currently a sub-stub) Photo : for pages listed in Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of sports and games and sub-categories. Stubs : work on articles in Category:Sports stubs Update : List of world sports championships Other : Translate the page of sport in each country from corresponding article in other language Misplaced Pages to English Misplaced Pages which was marked in red. Categorize: Gather all (major/olympic) sports to be part of this project RfCs: answer requests for comment 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. Politics: Gun politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Gun politics task force.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Russell Brandom (March 6, 2018). "How gun buffs took over Misplaced Pages's AR-15 page". The Verge. Retrieved March 18, 2018. David Brennan (March 7, 2018). "A pro-gun group edited the AR-15 Misplaced Pages page to hide the extent of mass shootings associated with the rifle". Newsweek. Retrieved March 18, 2018. Omer Benjakob (March 18, 2018). "Gun Enthusiasts Are Waging a War of Attrition on Misplaced Pages, and It Looks Like They're Winning". Haaretz. Retrieved March 18, 2018.

Use of "many" in lead

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

References

1. ^ Feuer, Alan (13 June 2016). "AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 February 2018.
2. Plumer, Brad (2012-12-17). "Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
3. "Guns Like The AR-15 Were Never Fully Banned". FiveThirtyEight. 2016-06-14. Retrieved 2018-02-26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(to be fair so many), (also so many), , (*also so many). So how many sources do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No you failed to explain why, and not for the first time here, you failed to follow BRD and instead went for BR edit war. Springee (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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

More specific wording

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

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

• Addendum - I've been pinged to this discussion once more because my position seems unclear to some. I've taken a second look at the precise edit request and the material. It's mildly convoluted, when I read the most recent six of the ten deadliest I first thought "wait, most recent (2012) or deadliest? (1966 - UoT is left out by the cited article, no idea why)" though I've worked out that it is meant to convey "the six most recent of the ten deadliest" (different word order). I hadn't noted that the first time. There is a problem with this. It's true now, but will not be true later. I say will not because it'll either be "seven most recent of", or "zero most recent of". I can support this being in the body (until such time as it becomes untrue), but not in the lede. I'll add that the lede shouldn't contain copies of material from the body. I meant that a single sentence summarizing the whole section be added to the lede, not the same sentence re-added. I've contrasted it against what is currently written: It has been used in many mass shootings in the United States. Poor because vague and inexact. Neither option is particularly good. Consider me neutral on the lede question. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, how about "Six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in recent American history have used an AR-15-style rifle"? That avoids the "most recent six" issue you bring up. It's also close to the lead sentence of this article.Waleswatcher (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That would work better for the lede, yes. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To address the "most recent" ambiguity, perhaps we could add a timeframe such as "between 2007 and 2018". The trend will be relevant to the history of the weapon even if statistics change in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but some editors might object it is too detailed. Personally I'm not very worried about "future proofing" whatever we say, given how much attention this article gets. What do you think of "Six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in recent American history have used an AR-15-style rifle"? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, why would we arbitrarily pick that time span? Why not 2008-2018? Why not set the limit to 2004 (end of the AWB) or expand the scope to the 20 deadliest? What about the top 3 deadliest? At some point these become very arbitrary and by picking the cut off the data can look really skewed. It would be good to find a source that actually spends some time reviewing some of this data and comparing it to other firearms in mass shootings as well as in normal crimes etc. Springee (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Even though the article was locked I will note at least one reason to reject the changes to the lead Waleswatcher was suggesting for the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the later discussion. So if our mention of mass shootings is "6 of 10" then the lead would imply we will only discuss those 6 shootings (in some form) and could be taken to mean no other mass shootings have used such a rifle. Basically that isn't an umbrella statement to cover the complete topic. Springee (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Note additional survey type replies are located after the edit breaks. Springee (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD policy states "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

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

The WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement ." -72bikers (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thewellman, as I said before I'm fine with your "disproportionately high" wording, but the problem is that it has to be reliably sourced. In a contentious article this one that's especially crucial, and your own checks won't stand against editors that object to the lack of RS. That's the strong point of the 6/10 wording - it's a fact, it's indicative of the disproportion, it's unambiguous, and it's reliably sourced. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Unambiguous? I interpret disproportionate to be either unexpectedly large or unexpectedly small in proportion to something else. The version I'm looking at seems to omit both the point of comparison (presumably the AR-15 style rifles' unstated percentage of the civilian firearms inventory) and whether it is larger or smaller. I confess to being confused by the various suggested wording. Perhaps a restatement of the proposed language will clarify these points for me. Thewellman (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thewellman - agreed! Disproportionately high is definitely better than just disproportionate. But by "6/10 wording" I was referring to the current wording: "AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history." My point was just that that wording really can't be (and in fact has not been) criticized on the ground of any wikipedia policy, because it's a simple statement of fact that's well sourced. "Disproportionately high", while clearly true, could be criticized (and probably would be) unless there is a reliable source that says it or something very close. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

@Thewellman: If you have concerns about the reliability of sources, WP:RSN would be the appropriate place to raise them. Your personal assessment of firearms inventory does not disprove :statistics compiled by a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 01:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The objections raised in this discussion do not negate the consensus in the straw poll at the top of this subsection, which has not changed in a week. If a compelling argument is brought forth, perhaps editors will change their !votes. –dlthewave ☎ 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, you are way too experienced an editor to buy into the "1 week stable" claim. The article was locked. That doesn't count as stable. We have no consensus and it's self serving to claim the other side is the one with the lesser arguments. Springee (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant that the straw poll !votes have been stable for 1 week. The lock did not affect the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't indicate a stable article and ignores editors who objected previously and who reverted the change. There isn't a consensus by any rational standard. Springee (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Since no one here can agree on what the actual consensus of the above talks are, perhaps it's time for an offical RFC for the wider community with a proper closer. Sound good to everyone? PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In theory that's good but what is the question? RfCs typically work best with a clearly defined and B&W question. I don't think we have that here. Springee (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure yet. Needs to be neutral, clean, and a simple yes no. If you have any suggestions let me know and I will see if I can put a idea together by sometime tomorrow. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's current consensus for inclusion. If people disagree, then an RfC is a good idea to validate or repudiate the consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

{{U|K.e.coffman]], How did you come to that conclusion? Could you please do us a favor and explain who you think agrees and disagrees so others might judge this "consensus"? Springee (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well as I posed just above you I agree an RFC is a way to go since people are edit warring the material back in the article with talks on going and a clear no consensus result above. I would welcome some input on the wording though. PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC sounds like a good idea. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

{{U|K.e.coffman]], How did you come to the conclusion we have a consensus. You have made the change claiming consensus. Please explain why you think we have consensus. Springee (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I came to the conclusion after I had looked at the iVotes and the strength of the arguments. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

By my count we have 4 supports, 4 opposes and some other editors who don't cleanly fall into either camp. The strength of argument claim is problematic. After all, if we can be participant and judge, well my arguments are always the strongest... even when they are based on coin tosses :) Alternatively, I would suggest we don't have consensus. Springee (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There are five in favor - Mr rnddude said "Add a single sentence to lede once the material is in the body" which is precisely what was done. As for the arguments, K.e.coffman is correct. For one thing, I haven't seen any objections at all for the edit to the body. If you have any, please say what they are. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If Mr rnddude wants to count as "support" then they can say so. That would still put the survey at 5:4. The opinions of involved members as to what arguments are "better" is hardly going to be unbiased. Also, we aren't talking about keeping content out of the body. This is a discussion of the lead witch is MOS vs RS/WEIGHT related. Thus opinions as to what reads better/sounds better etc are more important. Either way, we don't have a consensus thus per policy the edits should be reverted. Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"The opinions of involved members as to what arguments are "better" is hardly going to be unbiased." Perhaps, but these debates are settled by arguments for and against, not votes. So, please engage with the issues. What precisely is wrong with the current wording to the lead, and how can it be improved? As for the body, if it's not about keeping content out, why does that content keep getting removed? Waleswatcher (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The debate has become needlessly circular. No consensus has been reached. Per policy the change is reversed and we can move on. Perhaps you can try contributing a new suggestion for the body text. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @K.e.coffman: - while reverting disputed content that is currently being discussed, you wrote in this edit summary; "There's current consensus for inclusion; pls see Talk:AR-15 style rifle#More specific wording". - "Consensus"...? "Clear consensus"...? As determined by who? You? Just a quick glance of the straw poll shows the !votes to be basically tied, so are you taking it upon yourself to judge the quality of the arguments as being clearly weighed in favour of one particular outcome over another? Are you essentially declaring this discussion as 'closed'? Perhaps an uninvolved admin should do a proper review and close on this discussion, before there's any further edit-warring. Thoughts anyone? - WOLFchild 01:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be problematic, were a editor says there views outweights others sheerly based on only there opinions. This would appear to violate neutral point of view WP:NPOV, specifically "without editorial bias." It has been stated on more than one occasion that they mystically know why readers would come to these article, in search of crime use. That would violate NPOV, specifically "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." This would subsequently also violate WP:UNDUE. They have not provided any reliable source for those claims of why readers would come to these articles.

There pushing of fringe theories would viollate policy also, "a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight..." They have not shown any sources other than from news cycles, of which there is little mentioned now. There claimed views would also appear to violate WP:BALASP, specifically "give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". -72bikers (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC),

(edit break)

• Oppose - not only is it overly-detailed for the lead, but is is just ridiculously clunky writing. Furthermore, there is no need for for any lengthy or prominent mention of any criminal use in the lead, as it is but only one of the many, many aspects of the subject that are discussed and detailed in the article, (an article that is still critically lacking an all too necessary 'legitimate uses' section). Such lengthy, prominent notation of this one, minor, illegitimate use of this product in the lead is a violation of UNDUE and WEIGHT. There is already a detailed section about this in the article, with plenty of links for further info. That is sufficient. (imho) - WOLFchild 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It would seem that there is a movement on making gun articles into gun violence articles. I could see perhaps this content would be appropriate here in length if it was not covered already. But it is in many other articles devoted to this in great length. On that grounds (a violation of UNDUE and WEIGHT) there should only be a brief statement in the body and a Main article: here and perhaps a see also. Just because there is a guideline set for addressing this inclusion on a case by case basis, does not mean a free hand of inclusion. -72bikers (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, thank you for actually giving reasons! Now let's discuss them one by one.

• "overly-detailed for the lead" - let's compare. Your version: "AR-15 style rifles were used in many mass shootings in the United States". Consensus/extant version: "AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history." The six/ten language was added because some editors opposed to this change felt "many" was too vague. Now you are complaining it is too detailed? Perhaps the phrase "the primary weapon" can be removed, which would make it less detailed and shorter. Would that satisfy you?
• "ridiculously clunky writing" - wouldn't it be more constructive if you helped improve the writing, rather than just erase it?
• "there is no need for for any lengthy or prominent mention of any criminal use in the lead" It's not lengthy (barely longer than the other version), and no more prominent than the version you restored.
• "Such lengthy, prominent notation of this one, minor, illegitimate use of this product in the lead is a violation of UNDUE and WEIGHT." See above. If so, so is the version you restored. Also, note that an RfC concluded that information about mass shootings should be in this article.
• "There is already a detailed section about this in the article, with plenty of links for further info." Indeed, it lists all six of those mass shootings. As per wiki style the lead should summarize it, which this does, very concisely. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ww: Point #1: "let's compare. Your version: "AR-15 style rifles were used in many mass shootings in the United States"." - "My version"...? Uh, no... I didn't write that. Otherwise, I think I made it clear "what would satisfy me". As for points #2, 3 & 4: see my answer to point #1. - WOLFchild 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It is "your version" in that it's the version you recently edited into the article. You have not made clear what would satisfy you. Why not just say what that would be rather than making cryptic remarks? Can you please respond on substance? Or are you refusing to engage in discussion? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ww - "It is "your version" in that it's the version you recently edited into the article." - diff?

"Blah, blah, blah... cryptic remarks" - Seriously? If you honestly have no clue what my position is on this, then I really can't help you.
"Yadda, yadda, yadda... refuse to engage in discussion". Funny, I posted enough comments on this topic that I can hardly be accused of "refusing to engage". (In fact, a few people think I've posted too many comments here...) No, what I "refuse" to do is indulge you in your endless, circular arguments. Your questions have been answered and your arguments have been countered, all at some point, by someone, somewhere. This isn't accomplishing anything. - WOLFchild 00:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've restored the previous stable version of the lead. There seems to have been some confusion because the body text was changed (and revered) with the lead in the previous back and forth. I haven not changed the new material added to the body. This isn't an endorsement of that material just an acknowledgement that it wasn't changed while reverting the lead per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

less specific wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I remind everyone WP:NOTVOTE, while straw polls may help forge a consensus, discussion is the primary tool to determining consensus. IMHO if usage during crimes, mass shootings being a specific type of crime, is mentioned then it should be balanced by other usage such as by law enforcement as an example. That said, that is better detailed in the body of the article, and a summary sentence included in the lead per WP:LEAD would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD policy states "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

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

The WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement ." -72bikers (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

LA Times 6 of 10 claim

I know this is reopening a can of worms but the body of the article contains a 6 of 10 claim, the one discussed above. The problem is the source is wrong. The source includes the Pulse Nightclub shooting as one of the six. That shooting did not use an AR-15 type rifle and we have sources that say so. This means the LA Times claim is wrong. There is currently a NOR discussion related to this claim and supporting article. ] Springee (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Even the best sources can contain occasional errors. When an error in an otherwise reliable source occurs, the best practice is to simply NOT USE the erroneous source in that context. Base our article content (whether a specific fact, sentence, paragraph or section) on other sources.

In this case, surely there are plenty of other sources that mention how many times AR-15 style weapons were used in mass shootings. (And if NOT, then our mentioning that specific factoid seems UNDUE)." Taken from the noticeboard, seems to make sense. -72bikers (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

, , ,

The Pulse shooting didn't use an AR-15. Early reports incorrectly said it was based on statements by police. Since it was later found to be incorrect we have to treat the claim as incorrect.] So do we change the claim to 5 of 10 or remove the claim since it isn't correct? Springee (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which means 6 of of 10.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Niteshift36's list at NPOVN:

Business Insider also reports this . CNBC says "But not all recent mass shootings involve the AR-15 or its variants. The massacre of 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, for instance, was carried out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a semi-automatic rifle that is internally distinct from the AR-15, despite its similar look." . Tampa Bay Times

The Pulse shooter didn't use a AR-15 thus the number is 5 of 10 not the 6 of 10 claimed by the article. Springee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Err if a source says 7 out of 10 and one was orlando, what does that leave us? Now it may well now be 6 out of 11, I still make that most (.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying some claim can't be made but the specific claim (6 of 10) based on a specific source (LA Times article) is shown to be inaccurate. I would be OK saying 5 of 10 with a note that the source incorrectly identified one rifle as AR-15 type since we have sources to support that the identification was wrong. Springee (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is also true that there have now been a couple more since that article was published (a good reason to exclude such specific claims, so why has that one not been made?).Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm mentioning this today because I realized the error after seeing it discussed at the NPOVN. The LA Times story was from February. I'm not sure if things have changed since. Off the top of my head, the Texas school shooting would be in the top 10 for loss of life but it didn't use an AR-15 type rifle. This makes for a problematic stat since it can become out of date even if the facts were correct at the time. Springee (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which I think I pointed out, as a stat it will become too obsolete. But it is clear that many RS are saying it has become all too common in such incidents. So we need language to reflect that. The more exact number was only included because of objections top a more vague wording. So lets see the Texas school shooting would not be in the top 10 deadliest, so would not affect it (not even in the top 15, maybe that tells us a lot).Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling we really aren't disagreeing but we are arguing for practice :D . I agree that enough sources, right or wrong, have raised the AR-15 scare flag so we shouldn't just remove any such mention. However, we also shouldn't cite a claim from an article that is demonstrably wrong. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives. Is there a way we can use the article to indicate the "top 10" is significant but then we compile the list ourselves? It would be simple counting which in general isn't considered SYN. Springee (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not have to , the problem is the source we are sing says recent mass shootings, which makes it a bit too time specific.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So we would use the LA Times list to establish the significance of saying top 10 then CNN to list the top 10 that used AR-15s? I'm OK with that (assuming CNN doesn't misidentify anything). Springee (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to not give an exact figures and just go with something tense neutral. Such as "AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in a disproportionate number of the more recent deadliest mass shootings in American history", all can be sourced to RS and remains pretty accurate until some major shift happens.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the statistic is likely to change over time, it may be best to use a date qualifier like "as of February 2018." This will still be a historically significant trend even if the pattern changes in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 19:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer something along the lines of Slatersteven's suggestion. I don't think it's a good idea to use a dated stat. Springee (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How does five out of ten equate, "AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in a disproportionate number of the more recent deadliest mass shootings in American history"? That statement does not represent the facts. The facts only support use half the time in the last ten deadliest. Or have I misread this and we are just dropping any number distinction? -72bikers (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How that statement would be made without violating OR, I can't say. However, AR-15's aren't 50% of the firearms in the US. If they are 50% of the firearms used in a subset of crimes then one could say they are over represented in that type of crime. I'm not saying I've made a good case for it, just a case. I would rather say something to the affect that AR-15's have become negatively associated with these crimes. Springee (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That is the point made in a umber of sources, that the guns are used far more often then should be (statistically) the case. They are saying it is being chosen specifically for this kind of crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding a legitimate uses section

I suggest adding something like the following, perhaps with a section heading: Modern sporting rifle Thewellman (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

While some consider these rifles "a perfect killing machine" unsuitable for civilian use, United States hunters find that a useful feature for humane kills while other citizens prepare for military service or police careers using the rifles for independent marksmanship and proficiency training.

Hunting

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

Competition

Some civilians use AR-15 style rifles in Project Appleseed marksmanship training at 500 yards (460 m) distances. The popularity of self-loading sporting rifles has encouraged competitive shooting events emphasizing speed in addition to accuracy. The Precision Rifle Series for gas guns includes the Tactical Light Division for rifles like the AR-15 style shooting the original 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington cartridges with bullet weights not exceeding 77 grains (5.0 g) at muzzle velocities not exceeding 3,000 feet (910 m) per second, while a separate Open Division allows use of AR-15 style rifles with upper receivers firing other cartridges with bullet diameters up to 0.308 inches (7.8 mm) at muzzle velocities not exceeding 3,200 feet (980 m) per second. The ease of substituting accuracy enhancing parts makes AR-15 style rifles popular in Multi Gun competitive practical shooting events.

Well my first thought is maybe more then one source for popularity is competition, I am not sure one competition is enough. Also I think many might argue that hunting is not a legitimate excuse for anything (legal might be a better term).Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the competition shooting part needs more sources. It's probably worth adding things like Appleseed events to the section. Hunting is certainly a legitimate use but perhaps both could be put under a spring and target shooting category. The name of this section is one I would struggle with. Springee (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)#

Legal uses, seems easy enough, its what they both are, legal.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do other firearm articles have such a section? That could help. And if not, should this one? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not a legitimate reason to exclude material. Please review WP:OSE. Springee (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

One other thing, our lead says the rifle is "most beloved" and "promoted as American's rife". Well for better or worse, the material below talking about sporting uses and perhaps a section talking about enthusiasm for the rifle would be needed to support those talking points. If not then perhaps they need to go. Springee (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look at WP:OSE. The most relevant passage is

For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his film pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. Generally, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Misplaced Pages project.

(my bold). Hence, if we follow that essay, if other firearm articles do not have such a section, that is a legitimate reason to omit it here. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest description of uses including hunting is included in other Misplaced Pages firearm articles of similarly broad scope, including Combination gun, Bolt action, and Lever action. Thewellman (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making a "legitimate vs illegitimate" value statement, but hunting and competition are relevant to the topic and would be appropriate to include in proportion to their RS coverage. My only concern is sourcing. The two hunting-related sources consist mainly of anecdotal quotes from hunters, and the competition section should also include independent sourcing to establish weight. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the legit vs illegit value statement comment. These things should be mentioned but we also have to remember they don't get the news cycle coverage that a few high profile crimes get. But I think we can find a few more articles supporting various recreational uses and some articles talking about why the rifles are popular in general. WW, you missed that in WP:OSE the summary notes, "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others". Pages are edited by many people and not always in a coordinated fashion thus the lack of a section on one article is not justification for removal/exclusion at another. So long as we have some sources backing these sporting (and other legal) uses then we shouldn't blanket exclude them. Springee (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You do? Odd, because that was your term, not mine. Just above you wrote That is not a legitimate reason to exclude material and cited WP:OSE. Now that I've pointed out that WP:OSE says that it actually is a valid reason to exclude it, you're taking the opposite tack? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to exclude/include content in an article. But that wasn't what was being discussed. In this case it was calling the use, that is a title or label inside of the article, "legitimate uses" or the like vs say "Recreational uses" or "Sporting applications" etc. I hope this clears up your confusion. Springee (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The main question is whether such a section should be added at all. Per the essay you cited WP:OSE, it shouldn't if most other firearm articles don't have it.Waleswatcher (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to the hunting/sporting uses, should this add a section on particularity (perhaps as a lead into theses subtopics)? There are a number of articles that have come out in mainstream media, often around the time of a mass shooting, explaining why the rifles are popular with with much of the public. I have seen it claimed that in recent years the AR-15 is the best selling rifle type (firearm?) in the US. If that's the case we should include some discussion of why. If I get time tonight I'll link some sources. Springee (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the Appleseed source does not say it prepares anyone for police or military service, the closet it comes is "The combination of military-style rifle training,.." which does not mean it prepares anyone for anything.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. While some consider these rifles "a perfect killing machine" unsuitable for civilian use, United States hunters find that a useful feature for humane kills while other citizens prepare for military service or police careers using the rifles for independent marksmanship and proficiency training. This reads like an essay or news article, not an encyclopedia. It would be best to cover these things in separate sections (hunting, competitive shooting, criminal use, police use, etc.) rather than trying to compare them. We could describe the rifles and its features at the beginning of the article and explain how those features apply to various uses in the sections below. –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"This reads like an essay or news article, not an encyclopedia." But overly detailed crime content (from news cycles) in a article that is not about crime, is encyclopedic? -72bikers (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Moore, Ernest E. (February 15, 2018). "The Parkland shooter's AR-15 was designed to kill as efficiently as possible". NBC News. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
2. Dickinson, Tim (February 22, 2018). "All-American Killer: How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters' Weapon of Choice". Rolling Stone. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
3. ^ Metcalf, Dick. "The AR for Deer Hunting?". North American Whitetail. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
4. Schwartz, Mattathias. "Firing Line". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
5. ^ Drabold, Will. "Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill Using an AR-15". Time. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
6. Billings, Jacki. "Why hunters are trading in traditional hunting rifles for the AR-15". Guns.com. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
7. Schwartz, Mattathias. "Firing Line". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 17 June 2018.
8. "Precision Rifle Series Gas Gun Rules and Standard Operating Procedures" (PDF). PrecisionRifleSeries.Com. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
9. Harrison, Iain. "How to Customize Your AR-15 for 3-Gun". Guns & Ammo. Retrieved 23 May 2018.

He is not saying it cannot be here, he is saying that it needs to be better written.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• guns.com appears to be a blog / e-commerce site.
• PrecisionRifleSeries.Com is the web site for the competition; non-independent source
• guns & ammo is an industry publication.
• Time should be probably attributed as it's paraphrasing the gun owner impressions.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Guns.com is more like an enthusiast news site ] like Edmunds' news and reviews or The Truth About Cars might be for automotive information. Certainly a voice of the enthusiast and generally reliable in the area of firearms tech and use. Springee (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Guns & Ammo is to firearms as Cycle World is to motorcycles. It is considered a independent reliable secondary source by experts in there field and very well respected. If a editor does not know this, then should they be editing gun articles? -72bikers (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is project Appleseed so important it needs its own mention? is it the only marksmanship course/scheme in the USA?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Appleseed Project is one of the more active nationwide examples of the United States government-chartered Civilian Marksmanship Program to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military. Thewellman (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So no then it is not unique.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wound characteristics

I'd like to include the following text:

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

References

1. NYT-Wounds from Military-Style Rifles? 'A Ghastly Thing to See"-March 4, 2018

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

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

• For those interested in comparing velocity changes to barrel length, I invite attention to |this article. It should also be noted that similar velocity decreases may be observed as distance to target increases. It may be informative to compare muzzle velocity of other AR-15 or handgun cartridges to the short-barrel velocities reported in this article. Thewellman (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include: obviously relevant to the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The comments of the original poster is someone who is here to WP:RGW (based on edit summary comments here ] and the reply above). This isn't an article about ammunition or ballistics. Additionally, is there anything that suggests the wounds here are notably different than those made by a varmint or deer rifle? Why not just link to an article about the ballistics of the round instead? Springee (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12-gauge shotgun: 4,453 joules

30-06 hunting rifle: 4,050 joules

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

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

• • kevinp2, I hear this all the time from gun nuts, that no one else understands anything about guns and thus they should shut up. I'd suggest that you are probably not a medical doctor, nor a professional journalist, so I have a feeling you're fairly ignorant about a. this business about wounds and b. the ins and outs of professional writing, and so maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Also, unlike wredlich.com, which is a WordPress blog whose very title is POV, NYT.com is a reliable source. That matters here. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "Gun nuts", "fairly ignorant ... about professional writing", these insults certainly make you an expert, LOL. You would be surprised at how much "gun nuts" know about terminal ballistics. As just one example, all serious hunters know what will happen when their rifle bullets hit their target and they and their culture have invested time and energy into research and experiments. The entire staff of Mother Jones, Vox, Vice, Wonkblog, Raw Story, Rolling Stone, Slate and the NYT put together could not identify a firearm in real life if they tripped and fell over it. They are ignorant fools who don't understand guns, gun technology, the existing gun laws and the gun culture in their own country. And they don't care. They routinely make monkeys out of unwitting people like you who cite their hit pieces without verification. kevinp2 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - the crux of the NYT article is that rifle wounds are more severe than those from handguns. That seems so obvious of observation that it barely warrants a sentence in rifle, let alone a much more extensive quote in a more detailed article about a particular style of rifle. VQuakr (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, if it's written up in the NYT it must mean that it's not that obvious. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: One of the many problems with the "exclude" argumentation is people trying to explain the "truth" as they see it. Misplaced Pages is about facts, meaning something anyone can look up. Facts come from sources of varying credibility, the NYT being a very high credibility source. Whether a fact is "true" or not is not our call or concern. On-topic facts from credible sources should be included, and disputed with other facts.Farcaster (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2nd reversion

@Waleswatcher:, why did you revert 72bikers newly added material without comment or justification? Given the article sanctions a reversion with no justification of any sort is not acceptable. Please offer your justification for what is otherwise a disruptive edit. Springee (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you support the addition of the new material? Or are you neutral on the edit itself and you're just questioning Waleswatcher's revert since it didn't specify a reason? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The content is well sourced and brought neutrality to the criminal section. There is no policy that would support its removal or legitimate reason.

@AzureCitizen: why are you questioning editors Springee instead of @Waleswatcher:? -72bikers (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Because I want to know if Springee supports the new material. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Either way it was reliable sourced content that brought all views to this section. This is supported by policy and it is also what editors have repeatedly stated that instead of removing the criminal content that we should just bring all views to the section. What are your views on the removed content? Also can you explain your response either way that would bring light to you questioning? -72bikers (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also it appears WW has removed the combined references which are also within policy. I posted this almost a month ago that I was going to do this and no one objected. -72bikers (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Would the more important question be why WW removed sourced content that brought neutrality to the article. Also the removal of the bundling that made the content more readable. Was this simply he did not like it? Was it based on some policy? Is he showing ownership of a article? -72bikers (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it for many reasons. First, it's very badly written. Second, it's a long exposition of a single source, very out of wack with the rest of that section (that is an extremely condensed summary of gazillions of sources). It's nearly as long as the rest of the section put together. Third, it in no way "brings balance" - it's just some speculation about why mass shooters might pick AR-15s, while not even mentioning the obvious reason (that you can buy them at the mall, unlike AK-47s, and they are much more powerful than handguns or shotguns, and much better at killing many people than most other rifles). Fourth, the bit about the police choosing it because it is underpowered sounds both dubious (if they want a less powerful gun, they have handguns) and is misplaced, as it has nothing to do with mass shootings. Fifth, the same applies to the part about the military - nothing to do with crime or mass shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple comments:

that you can buy them at the mall, unlike AK-47s - I don't know where you all buy your guns, but you can buy AK-47s in the US. There are semi-automatic AK-47s out there. Apparently thats what the Dallas shooter used.

and they are much more powerful than handguns or shotguns - handguns, yes; shotguns, generally no.

and much better at killing many people than most other rifles - 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, just gonna leave that here.

Fourth, the bit about the police choosing it because it is underpowered sounds both dubious - the underpowered statement is referring to penetration power. As discussed heavily above, the rounds often yaw and fragment thus taking away alot of kinetic energy. Really this only means that a single bullet won't strike through two targets, or that a missed shot won't go through a wall and into somebody else. It does not mean that they are not deadly or useful.

I don't currently have an opinion on the material as I don't currently have access to a computer to take a closer look at this. I'm just issuing corrections. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call a semi-auto rifle an AK-47 (or a Colt AR-15 an M-16), but you're right, it seems other people do. Virginia Tech was handguns, not rifles. For the police thing, the main point is that it's irrelevant (to that section). Waleswatcher (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Again I think it would be prudent to mention there seems to be some misunderstanding of this article content. The content quoted from a expert in this field is clearly relevant to the article and reliable sourced. Your statement "Third, it in no way "brings balance" is puzzling. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. It cleary has a opposing view of the content right before it, thereby bringing neutrality to the section. Editors that have supported the criminal section have repeatedly stated instead of removing the content just balance it with opposing views. Is this not what I have done?

Your statement while not even mentioning the obvious reason (that you can buy them at the mall, unlike AK-47s, and they are much more powerful than handguns or shotguns, and much better at killing many people than most other rifles). It is readily available the same as a AR. It is not entirely clear what you are trying to say with this "Well, I wouldn't call a semi-auto rifle an AK-47 (or a Colt AR-15 an M-16)." A semi-auto AK-47 is not the same as (or a Colt AR-15 an M-16) it is the same as a AR-15. I would like to point out anyone could easly convert a AR-15 from 5.56 to the AK,s 7.62 round. These statements and the police and military statemenst shows a clear misunderstanding of this article content. I do not say this to be mean, just that lack of understanding is concerning and voiced as constructive criticism.

The content is not written in stone and certainly could be copy edited.

I would also like to point out you removed the bundled references, that you have not even addressed why you have removed. I gave notice a month ago on this talk page I was going to combine the long list, I think ten citations. This is supported by policy. -72bikers (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Tech was handguns, not rifles. - Yes, Waleswatcher, that's my point. The thing I was trying to illustrate is that not only can you commit an atrocity with a rifle, you can do it with a handgun. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Posted below is the content addition that was challenged on June 2nd. Perhaps interested editors could exam it more closely and provide a "support" or "oppose" comment along with their reasoning? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are two reversions here. The combination of the long chain of citations into a single citation should not have been reverted. It wasn't controversial. I will grant that Waleswatcher might have not realized the scope of what they undid so it may have been inadvertent. It would be helpful if WW would note if they meant to revert that citation grouping. As for the other material, again, it should not have been reverted without some type of justification by the reverting editor. I think there is potential for that content but as published it was putting too much emphasis on the opinion of a single interviewee. A "why these guns are used" part would be a good addition if we can find more references that actually offer some properly sourced claims as to why these guns were picked (based on solid research etc). Springee (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Reported by USA Today, a master firearms instructor, said "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle." It is believed these shooters don't know much about guns and use the AR-15 based on the rep it has received from other shootings. He also stated "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used." For example, the AK-47 is a "far more wicked gun than an AR-15." It has a larger more powerful 7.62 mm caliber and is more reliable compared to the .223 round and the standard AR-15 being used. It is suggested that shooters perhaps choose the AR-15 because it is the "weapon of choice" for police and military. But the police "choose it because it is under-powered...", "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." The military is said to be considering changing to a higher-caliber rifle partly to make their weapons more deadly.

References

1. Cummings, William (February 15, 2018). "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
2. Jansen, Bart (November 8, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.

• Support The reasons stated above in "June 2nd reversion". -72bikers (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NPOV. - Tom | Thomas.W 17:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support good balancing opinion that makes pretty obvious sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: undue weight given to an opinion by a nn firearms instructor. The material is too extensive, coming from a single source. There's also vague statements such as "It is suggested", "military is said", "It is believed". Once this is stripped out, there won't be much left. Perhaps one sentence would be acceptable, but not as proposed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You had no problems with nn surgeons expressing own views in the material discussed at RSN, so why do you have problems with this? - Tom | Thomas.W 21:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The content as I mentioned before is not set in stone. The man is a recognized expert in this field. Without the criminal content in this article it could be debatable for inclusion but that is not the case here. Without all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic you would be attempting to deny NPOV core policy. -72bikers (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Surgeons are experts on wound treatment while a firearms instructor is not an expert on mass shootings. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding that your issues are not valid, he is a recognized expert on firearms. How do you not get this? -72bikers (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the concept, although I agree the proposed language is relatively lengthy for a single source. I suggest condensing the text while incorporating information from supporting sources such as the three following. Thewellman (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Lloyd, Whitney. "Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters". ABC News. Retrieved 3 June 2018.
2. Hammerschlag, Annika. "Copycat threats to Collier schools surged after Parkland shooting attack". Naples Daily News. Retrieved 3 June 2018.
3. Ayres, Chris. "We are entering a new era of copycat crime". GQ Magazine. Retrieved 3 June 2018.

• Oppose Excessive length, and focusses on one theory for why shooters choose this rifle, based on one source. I don't have a problem including that, but we would need to balance it with other sources and maybe other such theories (depending what the sources say). Also includes irrelevant (for the mass shootings section) information about police and military use. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: what about the citation grouping you reverted when you did your original revert? Did you mean to revert that as well? Springee (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes this should be addressed. I posted a heads up on this talk page a month ago I was going to do this . -72bikers (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to grouping the citations.Waleswatcher (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well then will you fix your induced error and return it.72bikers (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

They can't, since the article is fully protected (i.e. can only be edited by admins) until this coming Sunday. But it should be noted that Waleswatcher obviously reverted without even checking what they reverted. Which is totally unacceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, let's just civilly move on without "noting" any such thing; sheesh. It appears we have unanimous consensus for the reference grouping, and restoring those after the protection expires will be uncontroversial. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

72bikers, a suggestion. Rather than bundling a technical edit like grouping cites with a highly controversial and completely unrelated change to the text all into one, just make it two separate edits, each with an appropriate, descriptive edit summary. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed then I will bundle it again after the lift. -72bikers (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

72bikers's citation bundle edit was stand alone ]. The edit summary was obvious and descriptive, "combine references". Springee (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct I also posted here a month in advance that I was going to do this. Should there not be a sanction for disruptive editing (WP:1RR). -72bikers (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as written - This is based on a single quote from an individual, and it's unclear who "the military" is. Generally speaking, however, it would be appropriate to cover the multitude of reasons that contribute to this being the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. –dlthewave ☎ 00:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support in some form. I agree it is too long right now. I wrote a shorter version at User:Vadder/Proposed text if you want to see my first thought as to how it could be improved. (I didn't want to confuse things by pasting another version of the text into the middle of this survey.) Vadder (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Does not look bad, maybe just a little more tweaking. I would suggest putting the rest in notes of the citation like the ones right before this content.-72bikers (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me this is (at least in part) being sued to counterpoint something we do not have here in the article about its lethality. If we trim it to just the parts about why they are choosing it (rather then why they are not) I might go for it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Springee's sourcing concerns about experts, Slatersteven's concerns about lethality being absent, and the reservations expressed below. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I won't give a simple support/oppose because I don't think it's that simple. The text as written, I would oppose but I think we seem to have two somewhat combined topics in that text. First, is why these rifles are used, the second is the damage they cause vs other guns. I think the first part we should try to get say three independent sources and summarize what they say (I don't think long quotes are needed). 72bikers has found additional sources which I think establishes the credibility of the original firearms expert. However, that is still just one opinion. If other experts say the same thing then that material should be good for a neutrally worded addition. I think I'm correct in saying most of the opposes aren't against the material in general just the current text which relies on the view of a single expert.

Second we have the wound profile. I'm not as sure how this material would fit into the article. I think that part of the discussion should be left to the discussion of the LA Times article or alternatives. Springee (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We have two experts for the content as to why used, will remove lethality as suggested. -72bikers (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also go ahead and bundle refs as agreed upon. -72bikers (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the text here forst.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So we say "we do not want it to say anything about lethality" and you include a line about that and claim to have addressed our concearns?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Comment: I've read the articles which quote the interviewee in question (a firearms instructor named Dean Haven who owns a gun shop called The Gun Experts). The new content, which is eight sentences in length, is based on Haven being quoted in USA Today, expressing his opinion that AR-15 style rifles are popular in mass shooting events because of copycatting and that compared to an AK-47, they are far less dangerous; in support of this, he asserts that the AK-47 has "larger more powerful 7.62 caliber and is more reliable." Misplaced Pages's own article on the subject, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, points out numerous ways in which an AR-15 type 5.56 rifle is superior. According to our own article, the AR-15 is ergonomically better and easier to handle; it weighs less; it has less recoil; you can change magazines easier and faster; you can carry twice as many rounds because they weigh less (Ten loaded 30-round AK-47 magazines weighs 21.2 lbs, Twenty loaded 30-round AR-15 magazines weighs 21.6 lbs); it has a better trigger mechanism; it is more accurate; it has greater effective range; it has greater hit probability; its rounds have greater velocity. While Mr. Haven says the 7.62 round would do more damage due to it being larger, its not hard to find others that disagree. See this article by a former special forces doctor, "I would rather be shot with an AK-47 than an M4." Or for something more scholarly, see this medical article about wounding effects from firing 7.62 and 5.56 rounds into 130 cadaver dogs, which concluded that the injuries caused by 5.56 were more severe than those caused by 7.62. Yet Mr. Haven opines that an AK-47 is "far more wicked" than the AR-15? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You do realized you did not directly contradict the statements from a recognized expert or disprove common knowledge. the AK is well know to be highly reliable because of its loose tolerances and the AR is well known for being unreliable because of its tight tolerances. The 7.62 is also well know for its penetrating power, and do I really have to point out a 30 caliber round is much bigger than a 22 caliber round. I believe the issues of editors not comprehending the article content is still being seen here, not being mean just constructive criticism. -72bikers (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A firearms instructor is not a "recognised expert" on mass shootings, nor is an anonymous person on the internet. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You would attempt to attest that a recognized firearm expert is not relevant to firearm content. He is not attempting to opine why they would do these crimes. He is only talking about the weapons. -72bikers (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your opinions are yours to have. He is not a recognized expert on mass shootings; how do you not get this? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither is any reporter you would cite on here, but you still do it. The "special forces doctor" may be an expert in medicine, but he is only speaking about his personal observations, making his view anecdotal. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

He's one guy with an opinion. Not to say his opinion can't be mentioned, but if we're going to do so we need to look for other sources on the motivation for choosing these rifles. Furthermore, the stuff about the police and military is completely off-topic for that section. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the mass murderers are similarly one guy with an opinion. It is dismaying that so many are more willing to publicize opinions stated with a gun, rather than words. Thewellman (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor K.e.coffman the repetition of your claims would lead me to believe you are assuming if you say something long enough it will magically make it fact. The man is a recognized expert on firearms. He is only speaking about firearms as it relates to this content. I think at this point it is moot to engage you in this nonsensical passive-aggressive behavior. WW if you fail to see content relevance, your opinion is noted. -72bikers (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of his level of expertise, this is just one person's opinion. It's a minority viewpoint at best unless we can find more sources to support the statement. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two citations from a reliable source, I assume you just did not notice that. You are not denying that the source is reliable correct?

Here is some policy "...all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." that fully supports the inclusion of the content. It also looks like most editors agree with this also. -72bikers (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The two citations are both USAToday articles which quote the same individual. Do you consider this to be a "significant view?" –dlthewave ☎ 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the sourcing concerns. First, I haven't seen evidence presented that this person is (or isn't) qualified to make the statements USA Today is reporting. If we can find a secondary source that says the person is a voice with weight in the area that would help. For example Massad Ayoob would be a "firearms instructor" who's opinions would carry weight (not sure if Ayoob has commented in this area). Also, even if the person is clearly qualified to offer an opinion we should try to find a range of opinions. I also think the text in question was too long given how much text we are devoting to mass shootings in general in this article. So, if that person does have the needed credentials I would suggest just one or two sentences and skipping some of the other material. I know, it seems odd that I'm basically agreeing with a number of editors whom I normally don't agree with! :D Anyway, the general idea for the material was good but it just wasn't ready to come out of the oven yet. Let's try to answer some of the questions that have been raised, add some additional sources and see if we can agree on say 2-3 sentences to add to the article. Springee (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor Thewellman has provide supporting independent sources. Proof the man is a recognized expert, ABC news quotes former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen said. “Most police departments carry it; our military carries a militarized version of it. In some mass shootings, the shooter had low knowledge of firearms. They just grabbed what they know, and that’s the AR-15.” "Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.

I believe the fact he was a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a expert, he would be a excellent reliable source as to why the police use this weapon.

The NRA says the AR-15 has “soared in popularity” because it is “customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate” and “can be used in sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations.” Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder -- echoed Hazen's comments . Blair doesn’t believe those are the reasons mass shooters are choosing the AR-15, though. “I don’t see a lot of customization happening with the guns mass shooters use. They’re pretty much using the stock AR which is easy to operate and straightforward,” Blair said..

CNBC posted the USA Today article also .

So I presume we can put this to rest. -72bikers (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To date, 5 support and 3 oppose.

With the added reference the content would look something like this. Quoted expert Dean Hazen said, "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle, it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." Perhaps they choose the AR-15 based on the reputation it has received from other shootings or that it is the "weapon of choice" for police. But the police "choose it because it is under-powered...", "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments.

It would be very odd to include some comment refuting the lethality claim, if we do not also include the claim of lethality. It is going to cause the reader to ask "why are they saying it does not cause nasty wounds, why are they saying that?".Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Cummings, William (February 15, 2018). "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
2. Jansen, Bart (November 8, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
3. Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018). "Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters". ABC News. Retrieved June 6, 2018.

New version

More than any attribute of the AR-15, expert Dean Hazen reasons mass shooters are turning to the rifle because of a "copy-cat" mentality. Experts told ABC News "it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." Perhaps they choose the AR-15 based on the reputation it has received from other shootings or that it is the "weapon of choice" for police. But the police "choose it because it is under-powered...", "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State Universitys Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center—which studies mass murder—echoed Hazen's comments.

References

1. Cummings, William (February 15, 2018). "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
2. Jansen, Bart (November 8, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
3. Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018). "Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters". ABC News. Retrieved June 6, 2018.

This is the content from accepted experts from accepted reliable sources on article topic. It was also run in the The Telagraph and CNBC.

There is also this in the article from Dr. Pete Blair with further support from a Professor of Criminal Justice. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally. They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013.

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

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

The NRA says the AR-15 has “soared in popularity” because it is “customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate” and “can be used in sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations.”

Blair doesn’t believe those are the reasons mass shooters are choosing the AR-15, though.

“I don’t see a lot of customization happening with the guns mass shooters use. They’re pretty much using the stock AR which is easy to operate and straightforward,” Blair said.

There is also this in the articles from Hazen with further support from a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert.

"It’s really just a perception thing," Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used."

The Army is considering moving to a higher-caliber rifle partly because that would make the weapon more deadly.

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

"Thank God they don't know any better because if they did they would use much more effective weapons," Hazen said. -72bikers (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Is this a quote from an article or proposed text? I guess I'm not following the intent here. Sorry, I'm less active about proposing alternative texts, off Misplaced Pages things are keeping me from thinking about some of these problems as much as I might wish. Springee (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The top is the proposed content to be included. The rest is just further content from the 2 credited experts, for all to see for support of the top or for possible inclusion. As long as the content accurately reflect what the experts views are on this topic.Cheers -72bikers (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

AS we do not discus it's lethality why are we still mentioning it here?Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is what the experts say, all the other thing they say back this up and explain it. This is a article about AR-15s, the section is about mass murder saying the AR-15 is being used and is the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes. This content from experts expllains why it is being used.

Experts told ABC News "it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity", "copy-cat" mentality. -72bikers (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This in the article content does imply lethality.

(AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten "deadliest" mass shootings in American history,)-72bikers (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No it does not, it implies body count, not the reason why the body count happens. A knife is not as deadly against an active opponent as one who is asleep. That does not mean that a man wielding a knife against sleeping opponents is using an especially deadly knife.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what are you trying to say? -72bikers (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That the lethality of the weapon and the lethlaity of the shooter are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Say what now? Exactly what are you saying the expert content is implying -72bikers (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This all goes hand in hand, reflecting what the experts say of the gun being used in these crimes ("lethality, but rather simple familiarity", "copy-cat"). Saying the gun is being used in crimes to mass murder people is certainly implying its lethality. Just saying the gun is used to kill people is enough to justify the inclusion of this content supported by "NPOV, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." -72bikers (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No it is not, being chosen for mass murder implies nothing more then what the sources say, mass murders know about it. I really fail to see why you need to say it is not all that lethal, when we include no such claim about it being that lethal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am more than happy to lend a hand and guide you to understand. Perhaps you are misreading the expert content? They are simply saying that the gun is not being choosen for its abilty to be more lethal than any other weapon. But they are being chosen based on what the killers are seeing others use it in other mass murders, police use, or militarized versions by the military. ("copy-cat")

Experts are quoted saying that this is what they believe, not you or I have a expert opinion. I would like to not cast aspersions on why you may not like this content related to your previous votes. I will just say Wiki policy supports this inclusion, this particular core content goes hand in hand and can not be whittle down any more and accurately reclect what the experts assert.

Experts told ABC News "it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity", "copy-cat" mentality. -72bikers (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I know what they are saying, I am saying that as we do not make any claim to lethality there is no justification for us including a rebuttal of such a claim. It does not matter how often you repeat what they have said. You have not made a case why we need it, what misconception that our article gives does it address?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You repeated your claim numerous time with no justification for your no inclusion opinion. There does not need to be a challenge for this content that you call solely a rebuttal. There is no policy that claims this reliable sourced expert content on topic needs to be excluded. Your opinion has been duly noted thanks you for participation. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Nor is there any policy that says it has to be included. What we do have are polices that say we should include relevant information and that articles should not give one side of a debate undue prominence. W Hat we have is a couple of experts who are responding to claims, if we have the response balance requires us to have what they were responding to, if we do not we violate NPOV (as we are only putting one side of a debate).Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven is correct. The statements regarding the lack of lethality of the AR-15 are a violation of NPOV (since the mainstream view is in fact the opposite, and that's backed up by many, many reliable sources, but none of that is included), and the stuff about the police is simply not relevant. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WW from your comment I believe you are misinterpreting exactly what the content is asserting. Your opinion has been duly noted thanks you for participation. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

72bikers I believe you are misinterpreting exactly what the content is asserting. - I don't think so, it's really quite clear. thanks you for participation - you're welcome! Waleswatcher (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok lets test that. Here is the content you assert you understand. Would you care to explain exactly what you think this content states. You also mentioned sources that contradict this stated expert statement. Can you provide those?

Experts told ABC News "it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity", "copy-cat" mentality. -72bikers (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Update

Existing text (AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.) Proposed addition Experts told ABC News there choice "...has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity," a "copy-cat" mentality, the use of the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof.” There stock AR choice is easy to operate and straightforward, mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation. -72bikers (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

With no objections after almost a week posted here, I will add this version to the article tomorrow on the 22nd. -72bikers (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't--it is not well written, and what you are proposing to add is not clear to me. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be an explanation to the current text adding the ABC news report. What would you suggest for cleaning it up? PackMecEng (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar and proper punctuation, for starters. Sorry, but this needs a serious copy edit before its content can be judged on its merits. Besides, it's way too long. That first sentence, if cleaned up, maybe. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A shortened, cleaned up version of that could be added, but only if we also include other points of view on the lethality of AR-15s, and why shooters choose them. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Drmies can you be specific? There are no grammatical errors, and the text is quoted from recognized experts. But Drmies I will listen if you have some further input.

The content simply states the gun is not being chosen for any merits of lethality (not for being overly lethal nor lacking lethality) simply that the users are basing there selection on just what they have seen other use. I Thought the language states this clearly.

The previous sentence state it is being selected, this content just clearly states why. So the existing content and this addition goes hand in hand.

It should also probably state who the recognized expert are also.

• Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally.
• Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert. -72bikers (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you used "there" instead of "their" every time the word came up. Additionally, the line Experts told ABC news there choice... is unclear. Who does "there" refer to? The experts? The shooters? Which shooters? The next line There stock AR choice is easy to operate and straightforward, mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation. isn't much better. This switches from quoting unnamed experts to speaking in wikipedia's voice, and the sentence is just generally not very well written. So yes, there are grammatical errors, the addition is poorly written and should not be added. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Experts told ABC News there choice "...has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity" This should be rewritten to clarify that it is a quote of the article itself, not the words spoken by the experts. –dlthewave ☎ 05:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Update 2

Existing text (AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.) Proposed addition Gun expert Dean Hazen and Dr. Pete Blair a Professor who studies mass murder at Texas State University. Told ABC News and USA TODAY, the mass shooters gun choice "...has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity," a "copy-cat" mentality, the use of the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof.” They have also assessed, mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation. -72bikers (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This does not address the quote issue which I pointed out in the previous version. The words are being presented as a direct quote of the experts, which is not the factual. –dlthewave ☎ 15:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Update 3

Existing text (AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.) Proposed addition Gun expert Dean Hazen and Dr. Pete Blair a Professor who studies mass murder at Texas State University. Told ABC News and USA TODAY, the mass shooters gun choice is based simply on familiarity and not based on any merits of the AR-15's lethality. A "copy-cat" mentality, the use of the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof.” They have also assessed, mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation.

References

1. Jansen, Bart (November 8, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
2. Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018). "Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters". ABC News. Retrieved June 6, 2018.

-72bikers (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on reading the citations again today, and from what I perceive to be the overall thrust and intent of the authors, I would winnow it down to just one sentence using the following words and phrases lifted entirely from the source articles:

Reasons as to why AR-15 style rifles might be chosen by individuals to commit mass shooting incidents include perceptions that the rifle is versatile, familiar, easy to use, and highly popular with other mass shooters, which may lead to copycatting as a form of social proof based on the rifle's reputation.

References

1. Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018). "Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters". ABC News. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
2. Cummings, William (February 15, 2018). "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
3. Jansen, Bart (November 8, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.

--AzureCitizen (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep I can live with that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds a lot better. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this is an improvement. –dlthewave ☎ 21:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm traveling so it will be after the weekend before I can read over the sources. The new prose reads better but it's tone is enough different vs the old that I would like to make sure it's true to the sources. Also, should the sentence be "and" vs "and/or". As written it suggests that a shooter picked the AR for all of the citied vs just some of. Springee (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This is no more taken directly from the sources than what I have already stated, Reasons as to why AR-15 style rifles might be chosen by individuals to commit mass shooting incidents include. It reads like Wiki is making this assumption instead of the recognized experts reasonings. In this same length of space there can be a explanation of exactly who is drawing these conclusions, i.e. the recognized expert such as Dr. Pete Blair a Professor who studies mass murder. Also you have removed content that explicitly states it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality. The experts are clearly saying that the shooters choice has nothing to do with the guns being highly lethal nor lacking lethality. They go into great detail explaining this.

Dr. Pete Blair a Professor who studies mass murder reasons the mass shooters gun choice has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity, easy to use, and highly popular with other mass shooters, which may lead to copycatting as a form of social proof based on the rifle's reputation.

Same length of last proposal with a more accurate description and accredits the source. -72bikers (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Where in the source article does it specifically state that Dr. Blair himself personally "studies mass murder"? Where in the source article does it specifically state that Dr. Blair specifically said that shooter gun choice has "nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality?" AzureCitizen (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

ABC news article word for word.

So why is this type of weapon so popular among mass shooters? Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality , but rather simple familiarity.

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

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

The article explicitly states experts (plural) there are only two experts in the article. They explicitly state lethality is not the reason of choice and go into detail explaining why. As you can clearly see Dr. Pete Blair runs and teaches courses in this field, this is his area of expertise. Even the FBI listen to what he says.

His credentials are also easily found online, , , , , ,.

I had posted there credentials already but I will post here again.

• Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally.
• Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert. -72bikers (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So? we do not need to say why it is not being chosen. We only need to say why it might be being chosen.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The article does not quote Dr. Blair talking about the AR-15's lethality. It states that he "echoed Hazen's comments" and quotes Dr. Blair talking about the AR-15's popularity and that mass shooters may be using it because of social proof. Dean Hazen made similar points about popularity and copycatting, while also making a claim about lethality. So while it's 100% confirmed that Dr. Blair agrees with and "echos" Hazen's position on popularity and copycatting, the article is ambiguous as to whether or not Dr. Blair took Hazen's position on Hazen's lethality claim. As a result, it is not verifiable to write "Dr. Blair... ...reasons that the mass shooters gun choice has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality..." as proposed above. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I can appreciate you have a opinion, but I disagree with some of it.

The article clearly states experts (plural) told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity.

The only experts mentioned in the article are Blair and Hazon and there is no question as to Hazen clearly stating the gun is not being choosen based on any form of lethality. This alone is enough merit to be included, a recognized expert in a reliable source.

You also have not shown cause for not stating who Blair is or what his credential are, nor that he is not agreeing with the "experts (plural) told ABC News it ..."

Hazen said this "It’s a copycat thing"' later in the article after the (Blair echoed Hazen's comments) so I do not believe that theory fleshes out.

These Statements from Blair after (echoed Hazen's comments) also support he is in agreement with Hazen on "nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity."

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

“You’re in an ambiguous situation and you don’t know what to do. That can be looking at what silverware other people use at a fancy dinner party and copying them, or it can be using the same type of weapon other shooters have used if you’re planning a mass shooting.” -72bikers (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I am reasonable and willing to compromise. Surely there is some middle ground that can be found. -72bikers (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There is, leave out one word (in effect), then we can have the rest of it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that one word is lethality, it does create an issue in that the article doesn't actually heretofore discuss the lethality of AR-15's when used in mass shootings. If it did, then adding a reliably sourced opinion that shooter choice preference for AR-15 style rifles in perpetrating mass shootings has nothing to do with lethality would make sense and be entirely appropriate. Do we want to consider the possibility of adding new content about AR-15 lethality in that context then, as the necessary prelude to adding the opinion that lethality has nothing to do with it? Or would that be opening Pandora's box? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Having read through the articles here are my thoughts. I would prefer better sourcing in general. These seem like the "we need to interview someone" type articles. I feel like the experts in question are offering their subjective opinion on motives rather than something based on study. This would be like a police officer saying why crime exists in an area. They have lots of first hand experience dealing with crime but perhaps less understanding of why someone turns to crime. Anyway, given I'm not in love with the sources I personally won't feel bad if the whole thing was left out absent additional sources. However, if we are to include it, the comment about lethality should be included. Yes, it wasn't a direct quote but if the reporter said the experts said lethality isn't a reason but A, B and C are then we shouldn't just include A, B, and C. We should instead have A, B and C but not lethality. For style reasons I would prefer not to include direct quotes, especially since we only have snippets of the original interviews. A good text suggestion isn't coming to mind so I can't help there (I don't like your soup but I can't tell you how to fix it). Springee (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I too would prefer the inclusion of the word lethality as it is stated by the expert and the reliable source specifically states this in the summarization of the experts. But as I have stated I am reasonable and willing to compromise. I believe this content significantly improves this section of the article and should not be left out. Here then is the newest version to be included, please point out any grammatical errors. If no further objections I will then include the content tomorrow.

Gun expert Dean Hazen and Dr. Pete Blair a Professor who studies mass murder, reasons the mass shooters gun choice, besides easy to use, has nothing to do with the AR-15's specific merits, but rather simply familiarity, and highly popular with other mass shooters, which may lead to copycatting as a form of social proof based on the rifle's reputation.

References

1. Cummings, William (February 15, 2018). "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
2. Jansen, Bart (November 8, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2018.
3. Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018). "Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters". ABC News. Retrieved June 6, 2018.

-72bikers (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Produce as many sources as you like supporting the text no one is challenging. The only possible compromise would be to also include those who say it is being chosen because of its perceived lethality, and then rebut it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your input, I will add it later today after giving other editors more time today to weigh in. -72bikers (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to find sources that say the weapon was picked based on lethality in order to include a statement that it wasn't. If a RS says it was picked for A, B, but not C then we can include mention of all three. If another RS says it was picked due to C then we say the experts disagree. We don't have to restrict our selves to only "picked for..." when experts point out it something it wasn't picked for. Calling out the negative is just as note worthy as the affirmative. Springee (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

But we do have to explain why they decided to refute an idea. After all that has singled that out, the reader will ask why?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have started a conversation below under lethality for this specific issue. -72bikers (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Brady campaign source

Regarding the assertion that the Brady campaign reference is a "self-published source", wiki's policy reads as follows: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Nothing in that applies to a press release by an organization. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your edit warring. The Brady Campaign is an advocacy organization, not a media source nor a subject matter expert. The claim was self published and controversial (see the debates related to the claim) as such we should only source it to reliable sources. Your restoration is against WP:RS. Springee (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WW instead of a edit war why not take your perceived interpretation to the noticeboard. -72bikers (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the removal of a source once is hardly "edit warring". In fact, 72bikers your revert of my revert violates the remedies on this page. That's the second time you've done that in the last few days. Be careful!Waleswatcher (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WW I believe I have asked you not to post on my talk page. Please leave any opinions on the relevant article talk page, Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You may have, but see here. This was a legitimate warning - your edit clearly violated the rules here and could get you blocked (although I see you've reverted yourself, which is good). Waleswatcher (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WW, on what grounds did you reverse my removal of a self published source being used to support a controversial claim? Under the circumstances 72's edit was a violation of the article sanctions but 72 also realized this and self reverted. No issue there and no reason for your threat. Now we have policy and at least two editors who say get rid of the material. Why do you think it should stay despite being self published material used to support a controversial claim? Springee (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: press releases are specifically identified as an example of a self-published source in WP:SPS, which is policy:

Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases....

The description as such seems pretty straightforward to me. Personally, I think the source itself is fine (not great, but fine), but as of now it also includes a longish quote in the citation that seems like overkill and is bloating an already ugly References section. VQuakr (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Being an advocacy organisation is not a reason for them to not be used, as long as we do not state what they say are facts (which we do not). The quotes are as different matter, and I do jot see why any of the sources have long quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That logic opens up using the NRA's self published statements as well. I got a lot of pushback for citing statements made by the NRA and published by the organization. Why is this different? Would you object to adding a self published counter statement issues by the NRA? 11:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No, and do not recall ever saying that could not be used as a source for their opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why are you ok using the Brady Campaign as a source for a contested claim? Striking that, I think I miss understood your reply. Springee (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Brady Campaign is as biased as the NRA is, although at the opposite end of the spectrum from the NRA, so neither of those organisations should be used as a source here, for anything, unless the views of both of them are presented in the same section. Since both of them are US only organisations, and their views thus are of little or no interest to international readers, both of them also belong only in articles about US gun control politics, not in technical articles about guns. And in case someone doesn't understand the difference between articles about US gun politics and technical articles about guns, Assault weapon is an article about US gun politics, since it deals with a US political/legal term, while Assault rifle, AR-15 style rifle, Colt AR-15 and similar are technical articles about guns. - Tom | Thomas.W 12:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a technical article. Misplaced Pages is written for a general audience and covers all significant aspects of a subject, including any related political issues. It happens that the American gun control debate appears prominently in sources, which is reflected in the article, but we do also mention events in Australia. (By your logic, should we also exclude information about manufactures that only operate in one country?)

We don't necessarily need to "cover both sides of the argument " within each section, only within the article. Often the "criticism " or "controversy " section is balanced by other, overwhelmingly positive viewpoints elsewhere in the article. If you believe that a certain viewpoint is underrepresented, than please work to add that viewpoint instead of removing opposing viewpoints. This is a work in progress that may not be perfectly balanced at any particular point in time. –dlthewave ☎ 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

a) Non-US readers shouldn't have to sift through walls of text about US-only gun politics to find technical information, so if you feel that kind of information is needed, create separate articles about that aspect of specific types of guns, and b) WP:NPOV requires all articles to be neutral, and represent "... fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", so if we include one utterly biased view from the anti-gun lobby we should also include an equally biased opposite view from the gun-lobby. - Tom | Thomas.W 13:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thats content not sources, and half the lead is taken up with non specification information. Sales are nothing to do with how it works, nor has the AWB (which is in the lead but not even discussed in the body).Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Que? "Content not sources", care to explain? Content is supposed to reflect what the sources say, nothing else, so I can't see a clear separation between the two. I would support the creation of a separate article named "Gun politics and AR-15 style rifles", or similar, and suggest that US sales figures and similar are included there, not in the technical article about AR-15 style rifles. - Tom | Thomas.W 14:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The question is not about whether the content should be here, but just is the BC a reliable source for it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Per WP:NPOV (and it's subsection WP:UNDUE) the question about whether material should be included at all or not always comes first, regardless of how good/reliable the sources are. Which is why it was made abundantly clear by multiple participants in the recent discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard that whatever the outcome there was, it would not override the outcome of discussions about NPOV/UNDUE on the talk page of each article. - Tom | Thomas.W 14:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, until I know what we are discussing I support the version of the page before the 12th June removals (and nothing else, including anything about other sources). So I want to ask now, what am I being asked, what is the qeuastion?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating the claim the Brady reference was supporting. We have enough other sources making the claim. I'm only saying we should remove the Brady Campaign as a supporting reference (ie no change to the text). The reason for removing the BC is that it's a self published source being used to support a controversial claim. Per WP:RS and the other links mentioned we should avoid using WP:SPS for controversial claims and press releases are considered self published ]. Again, this doesn't change the text of the article. Springee (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough now. They are not being used to support a claim but as an example of someone making it. As I said I have no issue with the NRA being used as a source for "and some think this".Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

AR

So why is the fact that AR means Armalite Rifle not suitable for the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Back in 1956, the "AR" from the original Stoner design indeed meant ArmaLite Rifle-15 (as the very first sentence of the article body explains). When ArmaLite went out of business, Colt bought the rights, made changes, and produced military and civilian versions for sale. With regard to their new semi-automatic only civilian version, Colt trademarked it as the "AR-15" (not as the "ArmaLite Rifle-15"); see trademark details here. All semi-automatic civilian AR-15 style rifles are descended from the Colt semi-automatic version trademarked as the AR-15, not the ArmaLite Rifle-15 fully automatic version which ceased production in the 1950's. So while its important to explain in the article body how the original rifle was called the "ArmaLite Rifle-15," it is incorrect to imply in the lead that "AR-15" still means "ArmaLite Rifle-15" for the Colt AR-15 & AR-15 clones in circulation today. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, this could have been said in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Lethality

The inclusion of the word should be made as Springee has pointed out in response to Slatersteven. If a RS says it was picked for A, B, but not C then we can include mention of all three. If another RS says it was picked due to C then we say the experts disagree. We don't have to restrict our selves to only "picked for..." when experts point out it something it wasn't picked for. Calling out the negative is just as note worthy as the affirmative.

I think he summed it up quite well. -72bikers (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

So if an RS says that someone has said it is unusually lethal then we should also include that by the same token. We do not only put one side of a debate. They are not (your RS) saying this without a context, so we include the context of the debate they are addressing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if a RS talking about why the AR-15 was used says that then it would be a valid counterpoint. In this case the RS should be an expert in the field, not just a writer adding opinion to a news story or a lobbyist pushing a narrative. I suspect there are RS's that will say these weapons are picked for legality and that would run counter to the claims of the other experts and thus both would be discussed. The point was obviously significant enough that the experts felt it should be mentioned. I'll close by saying I suspect we still could find better sources rather than trying to squeeze more out of these sources. None of the ones we have discussed feel very authoritative to me. Springee (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If an "expert" responds we need to include what he is responding too (as it must be significant enough for the "expert" to bother to notice and address it). That is what balance requires, all significant viewpoints.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

SS will you please restore the edit I made. I clearly stated above were the content was going. I placed all related content together, the gun choice with gun choice, and then the list of events together.-72bikers (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You removed content without discussion or agreement. I have reinserted it. You did not just "place it all together" you rewrote it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I must have missed it, what was removed? Springee (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken, the section may have been moved down, rather then all being kept together in one paragraph. Sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I wish we could par down the sourcing, it makes edits very difficult to follow. Do we really need reams of quotes in the cotes?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The article states experts (plural) told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. Dean Hazen is recognized as a gun expert and the other recognized gun expert is professor Dr. Pete Blair who has a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice, his skill set includes firearms and firearms handling . As for futher sources a brief search found this Blair in the news on this subject. I will look for more. -72bikers (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes the article does, the point is why they said it, not that they said it. They are clearly responding to something, so we need to include what they are responding to. The other side of the debate. If they think it is notable enough to respond to we have to agree and think it notable enough to include.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the article open in front of me but I don't recall thinking they were replying to a specific question. Again, based on the reading of the article, I would say we have two experts have said that lethality isn't the reason this rifle was picked. However, that comment was only made in one of the three sources. I would feel better if we had additional sources (for all of this material). At this point I am in favor of inclusion but even more in favor of adding sources first. Springee (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, I am looking for more, found this from CNN with Dr. Blair . -72bikers (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am missing the bit where he says anything about its lethality. What it is talking about (if anything) is police officers being scared of AR-15s. As well as telling people how to react to being shot. Maybe I missed it, care to quote?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said in that interview he sated anything. It was just meant to show further support of Blair being a expert, but that has already been fleshed out and really not needed. Any perceived meaning from that are your own. Here is something you should read to help you have a better understanding of this content, and put this more in perspective, MASS CONFUSION CONCERNING MASS MURDER . -72bikers (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

As Springee already stated and I fully support there is enough RS sourced on topic content support for inclusion (as per policy), we would like to find further support but that is not absolutely needed. You yourself from previous statements would imply you accept this. Your objections to date seem to be under some assumption that the article would need some content that this content would dispute. I do not believe your theory holds water, I am not aware of any policy that would support your views. Could you show a policy or provide any actual evidence that would supports your views of exclusion?

Your comments to date.

"balance requires, all significant viewpoints" Yes policy supports this, but it is unclear how you think that supports content exclusion.

"the point is why they said it, not that they said it. They are clearly responding to something, so we need to include what they are responding to." You clearly accept they both said it, but you appear to think they are just responding to some imaginary statement, that you feel needs to be included.

"Produce as many sources as you like supporting the text no one is challenging. The only possible compromise would be to also include those who say it is being chosen because of its perceived lethality" No one is telling you if you find RS expert content that contradicts you can not included it. There is also no policy that states we must find that before including this. Policy states what Springee informed you "if a RS' says these weapons are picked for legality that would run counter to the claims of these experts and thus both would be discussed." That is policy under "all significant viewpoints." But as Springee stated "the RS should be an expert in the field, not just a writer adding opinion to a news story or a lobbyist pushing a narrative."

"we do not need to say why it is not being chosen. We only need to say why it might be being chosen" What policy states this?

"Nor is there any policy that says it has to be included. What we do have are polices that say we should include relevant information and that articles should not give one side of a debate undue prominence. W Hat we have is a couple of experts who are responding to claims, if we have the response balance requires us to have what they were responding to, if we do not we violate NPOV (as we are only putting one side of a debate" There is no debate in the article. Responding to what claim? You seem to be going back to if you have a experts point of view you must include a expert with the opposite point off view. Like I said previously that theory does not hold water.

"I know what they are saying, I am saying that as we do not make any claim to lethality there is no justification for us including a rebuttal of such a claim. It does not matter how often you repeat what they have said. You have not made a case why we need it, what misconception that our article gives does it address? Once again you seem to be under the impression any content added to a article needs to be some "rebuttal". This article content claim has no rebuttal. AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes. So why is it in the article?

"No it is not, being chosen for mass murder implies nothing more then what the sources say, mass murders know about it. I really fail to see why you need to say it is not all that lethal, when we include no such claim about it being that lethal This appears you have misinterpreted content. The statement neither states the weapons is lethal nor that it is non-lethal. They are merely stating the gun choice is not based on any form of lethality.

"AS we do not discus it's lethality why are we still mentioning it here" There is no policy that states something has to be already mentioned for any form of RS expert content inclusion.

"It would be very odd to include some comment refuting the lethality claim, if we do not also include the claim of lethality. It is going to cause the reader to ask "why are they saying it does not cause nasty wounds, why are they saying that?" Again you misinterpret the content it neither affirms lethality nor rebukes lethality. They merely state the shooters weapon choice is not based on any form of lethality, but based on it is what others are using "copycat". Most appeared to have low knowledge of firearms.

"Seems to me this is (at least in part) being sued to counterpoint something we do not have here in the article about its lethality." This is from the article, AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings. Would you try to deny this statement would lead readers to think this is a extremely deadly weapon? Unlike what some might assume it is not being chosen for any perceived form of lethality is what the experts are saying. -72bikers (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I will only answer one point, "balance requires, all significant viewpoints", that means that you do not put one side of a debate. If you do that violates policy and so should not be included. You put both sides of a debate or neither side. Now we know that there is another side to this, we had a debate about it (and a lot of people said the information should not be included), but now you are arguing for those who say that it is not the case to be included, that violates NPOV. It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not, what matters is coverage (and appeals to authority to my mind are always a bit weak anyway, why are not doctors experts on wounds?).Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If you mean we have RS experts who disagree and we should cover their conflicting views, I agree. This is why I think we need to find more sources (I say we though I've done nothing to help find these additional sources). If you mean, people/groups that aren't subject matter experts then, I don't agree. For example, if the Brady Campaign says these guns are picked for X, Y, Z, I see no reason to cover that because the BC aren't subject matter experts. If their opinions get significant news coverage then it might make sense to cover that someplace but only in context of the opinions of an activist organization, not as experts saying why these guns are being used in crimes. BTW, given the amount of back and forth the "not picked for lethality" has caused on the talk page, I think it further stresses why we need more sources, ideally, sources that don't cite the experts we have already listed. Springee (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Non expert opinion is not "all significant viewpoints", NPOV does not support this and that is just common sense. That argument is not logical. Your statement "It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not" violates policy. I would suggest you tread lightly with that thinking, as that will get you blocked if you try to insert that thinking into a article. The wound content has nothing to do with this expert content. Still after all this debate, you fail to understand this content is not saying the weapon is lethal or that it lacks lethality, it merely states the weapon is not being chosen for any perceived form of lethality, but is being chosen because it is what they have seen others use "copycat". How is a doctors opinion on balistcs the other side of of a copycat debate? You seem to be confused that just seeing the word lethal is some kind of assertion of the weapons ability to kill. This discussion is now futile and lacks all logic to debate this any more on illogical thinking. -72bikers (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOV says nothing about only expert opinion being significant. Nor (as far as I know) is there an officially recognized body or standard for determining what a "gun expert" is, on the other hand there is one for medical expertise (or even meteorology, or geology). There are many reasons they may not be choosing it, so why is that one singled out, because it is addressing a concern expressed by people whose views the "experts" deem important enough (and this significant enough) to be addressed. If you think I need to get banned report me, but do not expect me to stop objecting to this content. Address my concerns wit ha revised edit or report me. We are going round in circles and I see not point to this any more.

My last word is I object to the inclusion of irrelevant material about the weapons lethality until the material is balanced with the opinions of those who think it is usually or exceptionally dangerous. So do not take non replies as acquiescence, it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant if a subject matter expert specifically says this isn't a reason for selection. There are many other "not-reasons" that are true (AR-15s can be painted pink, they aren't by design ambidextrous, they are typically made in the USA, they use (I assume) SAE threading vs metric thread, they were featured in a particular movie etc). There are literally an infinite number of "not-reasons" but the experts felt it was worth mentioning lethality. That makes just as noteworthy as the reasons for selection. That said, I'm still going to throw out my disclaimer, I think we need to find better sourcing since my gut tells me there are experts who likely disagree or suggest other reasons for the selection. Springee (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to discuss lethality there - not without a more general discussion of the lethality of this rifle compared to others. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure it does. We have a section of text where experts weight in on the motivations for selecting these guns. If one of the things they specifically say is legality (vs other firearms) isn't a reason for selection then we should include that. WP:DUE doesn't say we need to balance that opinion with non-expert opinion nor that only affirmative motivations should be mentioned. Springee (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much WP:DUE, it's context and proper writing. If we tell the reader there that mass shooters don't choose the AR-15 because of its lethality, they wouldn't be sure if that means they don't choose it because it is very lethal, or because it isn't, or because mass shooters think it is even though it isn't, or what. It's just out of the blue. But to establish any of those possibilities, we need more sources and text that are out of place in a section on mass shootings. The whole thing is already unbalanced - we have an extremely concise summary of the shootings themselves, and then a relatively long sentence about shooter's motivations for choosing the AR. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Firearms articles
• Mid-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Start-Class sports articles
• WikiProject Sports articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• Unassessed gun politics articles
• Unknown-importance gun politics articles
• Gun politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press