Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 15 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.

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. AR-15 style rifles dominate Camp Perry and 600-yard competitive shooting event; and they've enhanced the popularity of 3-Gun practical shooting and carbine-precision rifle shoots. 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. "AR Rifles in the Hunting Woods". Outdoor Life. Retrieved 12 July 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
10. 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)

Oppose: The 5.56x45 NATO is one of the weaker rifle rounds out there. One of the main criticisms of the round is it is too weak. Afootpluto (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

I see the concern you are raising and it has merit. Personally I would rather mass shooting/crime section focus more on why and impact of the use rather than on "used in crimes X, Y, Z...). I feel that a list of "used here, here and here" and a list of statements by public figures/organizations is rather superficial coverage. The why's and hows are more in depth, under the surface but also harder to source. Your comment about lethality makes sense in that we have no reference (lethal compared to what? perception of lethality or lethality based on testing?). My concern is simply that our sourcing seems limited and I would feel better if we had the views of criminologists or similar since we are now talking about an intersection of motive (physiology), crime (criminology) and firearms (firearms experts). This is why I would like to see better sourcing, ideally not material from news articles but rather more in depth studies on the subject. Springee (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert

‎Slatersteven please undue your revert of the citations or I will take this to a noticeboard. You have no right or policy support to remove quotes in the citation. -72bikers (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a blockable offense but I would like to know the reason for the revert of quotes that don't appear in the text. I do get that sometimes extended quotes are used as away to kind of get around consensus and I'm not sure how editing rules apply to the quotes vs the body of the text. Slatersteven's removal comment was "Not minor and no consensus". Well, given the addition was to the citation not the article text I think it could be seen as minor. Also, consensus isn't required to add at this point, only to restore. Additionally, the quotes are supporting the statements the citations are being used for in the text. So I would read the removal as not properly supported (but not in bad faith). That said, I've also dealt with articles where editors have tried to use quotes inside of the citations as ways to try to POV push. Perhaps it would be best if we could say why the quotes help (@72bikers:) and why they shouldn't be included (@Slatersteven:). Springee (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There are walls of quotes in this section fare larger than these. Policy supports there use and he has not stated any policy that would support his removal. His broken English is sometimes hard to understand, but I believe you have pointed out his claim of minor and no consensus. Neither reason support legitimate reasons for his actions. Yes I would like to believe in good faith also, but his behavior is verging on disruptive and thereby sanctionable. -72bikers (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There use here as you have pointed out Springee, is in support of the statement. It is taken directly from the references, and they help the readers by adding more context for the information. I am probable going to tinker with them some more to help the readers know who these experts are.-72bikers (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I to have seen eds try to use use quotes inside of the citations as ways to try to POV push, and as this is (in essence (adding material that has been objected to by cite quotation it looks like that is just what this is (as it is exactly the material you have been trying to add)). Maybe it is not, but it look damn odd. also see WP:MINOR, this was addition of text, so not not a minor edit. Please take it to a notice board. Also I did not remove any sources, just removed quotes we do not need.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Content cannot be added to the article without consensus, and that was certainly not a minor edit. (I've reminded 72bikers of that with a talk page warning.) Slatersteven is perfectly in their rights to remove it, and it cannot be re-added without consensus. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, your warning was wrong and needlessly antagonistic. The addition can be done without consensus. The restoration would require consensus. It's arguable that the addition was minor since it didn't change the text of the actual article but I also see the potential as a POV push. Regardless, 72bikers didn't restore the edit so your warning was unneeded and unhelpful. Springee (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

WW this is exactly the reason you were asked by me to stay off my talk page. You have repeatedly left these harassing warning unjustly. Again please stay off my talk page you may leave any comments on the relevant article talk page. If you doubt I have the authority or policy support to make this request you are misinformed. -72bikers (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not only do you not have "the authority or policy support", you were in fact told explicitly by administrators in an ANI that you cannot prevent people from placing legitimate warnings on your talk page. And Slatersteven is right, this should be discussed on your talk page, not here - but you won't allow that. Anyway, this will be my last comment on that topic here. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is really not the proper venue to issue or discus warnings.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Lets say this again, article talk pages are for discussing the article, not users action (see WP:TPYES). Doing so is a breach of policy. In fact I think a reading of WP:TPG maybe of use.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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