Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 9 March 2018

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.

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. Archived from the original on March 6, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2018. For months before Parkland, information on generic AR-15 models was relegated to the Modern Sporting Rifles entry, which detailed various models and after-market additions, but made no mention of mass shootings or other gun control efforts.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Primary sources

I removed citations to primary sources from the 1st sentence of the lead. They are unneeded there anyway. Preserving this content here:

• AR-15 style rifle (also known as modern sporting rifle (MSR)) is a general category of modular semi-automatic rifles based on the Colt AR-15 design and now made by many different manufacturers.

References

1. http://www.colt.com/Portals/0/Specs/2016/AR15A4.pdf This Semi-Automatic Colt Rifle is a throwback to the full-size AR-15 which gave birth to the Modern Sporting Rifle]
2. "DPMS Founder and President Retires". The Outdoor Wire Digital Network. 14 December 2009. Retrieved 16 August 2013. Luth's quest to introduce the hunting market to the AR platform was recognized in January 2009 when he was named to the Outdoor Life's OL-25, and later chosen by online voters as the OL-25 "Reader's Choice" recipient. The recent campaign by the NSSF to educate hunters everywhere about the "modern sporting rifle" can be directly attributed to Luth's push to make AR rifles acceptable firearms in the field, the woods and on the range.
3. Gross, W. H. "Chip" (January 2, 2018). "7 Things You Didn't Know About the AR-15". NRA FAMILY. To counter that sentiment, the National Shooting Sports Foundation coined the term Modern Sporting Rifle, pointing out that these new semi-autos were no different in function than previous semi-automatic rifles. It took a while for the AR-15 concept to catch on and become fully accepted by sportsmen—especially with older hunters and shooters—but the floodgates gradually swung open and today AR-15s are the most popular sporting rifle platform. So if you own an AR-15 you also own a Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR), and vice versa.
4. "Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) Comprehensive Consumer Report 2010" (PDF). National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2010. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
5. "Modern Sporting Rifle Facts". National Shooting Sports Foundation. 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2013. Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to put back, at a minimum, the fifth one, that references the NSSF's website. It shows very clearly that the largest firearms trade group considers "modern sporting rifle" to be an equivalent term for "AR-15 style rifle". So even though it's a primary source, I think it's quite helpful. Although I would put it back with a different quote, or with no quote. And also, it could be placed right after the first mention of the term "modern sporting rifle". — Mudwater 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point; I re-added source #5 with this diff. Thank you for the suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we fill in the content?

Once the dust settles down I would hope we could start filling in a lot of the content that was likely in the older AR-15 articles. It would be good to have a complete section on how the rifles generally operate and variations/modifications to the basic design. Basically I think if someone comes to Misplaced Pages to learn how this type of rifle works and is built this would be the primary article. It could also cover some of the history starting with Armalite then Colt, touch on the M16 history etc. Yes, it can also have the politics with crime etc but I would hope we can keep it balanced. Just saying "it was the weapon used in X" feels a bit like the body count some have mentioned. We shouldn't hide that information but we should also include why gun rights people are opposed to bans etc. IMHO, it's not that including the crime information is bad, only that it seems that so often it's added as a one way thing. We should be sure to say why it's popular with law-abiding users and why sales have been strong etc. I would hope this article has length issues rather than just edit warring issues. Springee (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Question -- is this already covered in AR-15_style_rifle#Background? Since this is an article about a category, it makes sense that it would provide an overview, while the details can be filled out at each rifle's article. I.e. the content should be fairly high-level, providing info on the category of rifles. This is my current thinking on the topic at the moment. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really. For example, look at the level of detail in this section of the Colt AR-15 article ] (and the next section). The Colt article as a lot more detail about the operation of the mechanism and the various parts. I'm not thinking this is a short term thing but I think it would be great to see this expand to include a lot more detail all around. There is so much information about the AR platform in general that ultimately we should be arguing about how to keep the article within the typical Wiki article size limits. This is something that I think will take time, I just don't want people to think the article's current state is where we should leave things. Springee (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but isn't Colt AR-15 one of the "AR-15 style rifles", i.e. the original one? Duplicating the same content here as at Colt_AR-15#Operating_mechanism would be redundant, no? Something high level would work better, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically the Colt bought the rights from AmaLite, the ArmaLite AR-15 is the original. Colt is the trademark holder for AR-15. PackMecEng (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, Fairchild Industries had a subsidiary, Fairchild Arms International, Ltd. and ArmaLite was their brand/trademark which they would sell to Colt.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: your statement is conflating the semi-automatic-only Colt AR-15 with the select-fire ArmaLite AR-15 assault rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 has not been made for over 50 years and was never sold to civilians. I don't believe it can be considered to be part of "AR-15 style rifles" that are being discussed in this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think in particular the modular aspect has a lot of room for expansion, and probably deserves its own section heading.--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Propose copying operational material from Colt AR-15 article? The Colt AR-15 article used to be the general AR-15 article. I would propose either copying or moving the Operating Mechanism and/or Features sections to this article. The Operating Mechanisms could then be expanded to talk about some of the variations that have been produced. For example, some manufactures replace the gas system with a piston-rod type setup. Calibers other than .223 and 5.56 have been offered. Also, even though it's political, I think a discussion of the feature changes manufactures have produced to comply with (bypass depending on your POV) assault weapons laws would also be relevant. Springee (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

in media res

• Considering there are ongoing discussions about the content and title of this page (and related articles and subjects, including an active RfC that could affect this page), I'm wondering why it is that editors are currently making content changes to this article without even mentioning them here on the talk page first? isn't this the kind of thing that leads to disputes and disruption? Perhaps we should put the content changes on hold until the discussions are done and there is consensus on what should and shouldn't be going into these articles. JMHO - WOLFchild 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

follow up

I'll post this here, because I already inquired about this, in this section, and I don't to want to split off from any discussion about a specific edit below. Above, Springee asked about "adding content", which was appropriate to ask because the addition of some types of content is currently being disputed. There were several discussions that popped up on firearms related pages, seeking local consensuses, they were closed and directed to the Firearms Project for a central discussion. That location was disputed, so now we're having a RfC at the Village Pump. From what I've seen, there is no consensus there either way, and as of yet it is still open.

Meanwhile, Springee's question here turned into a discussion of rights ownerships, etc. and meanwhile, I noticed that while all this was going on, some editors were adding content anyway. We now have a kind of 'information creep' occurring, while discussions are taking place on whether or not to even add such content and if so, how it should be added. There is now a section here titled "Mass-shootings" that wasn't there a few days ago, and within it, links to three of the deadliest mass-shootings, and a notation of AR-15s being involved in 13 total. Then links to four more shootings were added, making it seven. Now three more links are added, making it ten. (this latest edit is the discussion I mentioned below)

At the same time, significant content is also being removed as "promotional", by editors such as "K.e.Coffman", who have clearly taken a position on this issue, and editors such as "AzureCitizen" are continually adding content, without so much as a peep here on the talk page, knowing full well this content is currently being disputed. Why bother having RfCs? Or Consensus? Or even talk pages, if controversial subjects are just going to be a free-for-all anyway? I think we should slow down on the editing here until some content decisions have been made by the community. Or else there'll just be continuous debates, reverts, mass-changes, etc. The kind of disruption we want to avoid. - WOLFchild 00:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

An RfC related to this topic has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Orlando Shooting

I reverted this edit, but it was reverted back without discussion. According to , "Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed". Additionally, the Sig Sauer MCX is one of the models listed in this article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Sig MCX is not an AR-15 pattern rifle. It uses a different operating mechanism and isn't based on the AR-15 design. USA Today simply got it wrong. That said, in my opinion (but not based on the definition in this article) the MCX is a "Modern Sporting Rifle". But this article is almost certainly going to be renamed (again) to "AR-15 style rifle" and the current content is, based on the talk page, meant to only refer to AR-15 pattern rifles. Springee (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide an RS for that? A Washington Post article was mentioned in an edit summary. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you look into the matter a bit more. The confusion came about because it was originally reported to be an "AR-15" type rifle. While I would agree the MCX is in many ways similar, I don't think you will find an actual firearms expert who would call it an AR-15 style rifle. Here is an article about that issue as it relates to the Orlando shooting. ]. Springee (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The MCX is a different gun. When this article title is changed, any mention of it or any other non-AR-15 pattern rifle will have to be removed. There should be no mention of the AR-15 in any articles related to the Orlando shooting and vice-versa, there should be no mention of the Orlando shooting in any articles about the AR-15. Adding or changing content based on what is now known to be a factual error by a media outlet would be irresponsible. The Orlando shooter didn't use an AR-15, just like he didn't use an AK-47. Or a Bazooka. - WOLFchild 12:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass shootings

@Thewolfchild: Regarding your revert here, what are the WEIGHT problems with my edit? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Interjecting and not wanting to derail the discussion that the two of you may have but I really wish that people would quit adding Umpqua Community College shooting because no AR-15 clone was used at all. He had one but never fired it so please stop saying that it was "used" in that shooting as that is inaccurate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AzureCitizen: Well, aside that the fact that edit had already been removed once by Springee, this is the type of content that is now being discussed at an RfC at Village Pump, as well as on other pages, with a new debate popping up on different pages seemingly every day, (despite the RfC @ VP). I was under the impression that no consensus has been formed yet in support of adding more of this content (unless I missed something). It's already noted as being used in mass-shootings, and at one point, there were links to three of the deadliest, which I thought was sufficient, but now there's seven and you want add another three. Do we really need such a lengthy list in that section? Will we keep adding more and more mass-shootings as they occur? It just seems a bit too much, and that's what I mean by "weight". But, if consensus supports that addition of all those other mass-shootings, then so be it. I'm not trying to hide the fact that AR-15s are used in mass-shootings, just keep a balance with the rest of the article.

Perhaps we should decide on a set number for now and stick to it. Then revisit again is say... six months. I would support the three that were originally there. But I'm sure others would feel different. - WOLFchild 23:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

After further consideration, looking at the page history and taking into account the open RfC, I'm striking my last comment. I've added further comments below. - WOLFchild 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

follow up

The section "Use in mass shootings" was added by User K.e.coffmam on 19 February. There was no proposal, discussion or consensus supporting this addition. While it could be considered a "bold" edit, it is also controversial content that was, and still is, being discussed and debated, with no consensus as of yet. (There had been an aborted straw poll started regarding the inclusion of such content, but it was closed prematurely as it was started by a ban-evading sock. There were some contributions, though not enough for a solid consensus, and additional editors did not have an opportunity to contribute before the closure).

• User Bishati then removed the section on 21 February. This removal should have initiated a discussion, but that didn't happen, instead;
• User Wbm1058 reverted the section back in again, while adding additional content of the same nature to the lead. Still no discussion regarding this content. Then;
• User Bishati again removed the section, but still no discussion started. Then;
• User AzureCitizen reverted the content back in, with the edit summary: "Your changes have been challenged; go to the Talk Page to seek consensus".
  

I learned of all this when another ban-evading sock (or the same one?) tried to expand the section and was reverted. AzureCitizen tried to re-add the additional content, but I reverted, which initiated this section. While I agree with AzureCitizen's edit summary comment that there should be a talk page discussion seeking consensus regarding this content, it's debatable as to who the onus fell on to start such a discussion. But it is not Bishati's responsibility to seek consensus to remove the content. It was added without consensus, therefore, it falls to either K.e.Coffman, Wbm1058 or AzureCitizen to seek consensus to add (or re-add) it in the first place.

Considering there is an RfC at the Village Pump regarding this very subject, (the inclusion of information about mass-shootings on firearms articles), that is still open, with no consensus, should this content have even been added? (or re-added, again and again), Should we not wait until the conclusion of that RfC, (which was supported and contributed by the OP of this content btw) before making these changes, or even having discussions on this page about what to add, how much to add and how to add it? - WOLFchild 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And now we have another addition added to "mass-shootings"... "spree killing". As well as this commentary. This is the type of POV-laden content that is currently being debated, and while the discussion continues, and no decisions have even been made, the article just keeps getting heavier and heavier... - WOLFchild 19:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, Dlash is a new sock for an old, blocked master ] Springee (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I see that now, but there are still some questionable edits being made. While Cavalryman V31 removed removed part of that content "Dlash" dumped in, he left in the part about the "spree-killing". But, with the same edit, he also removed content added by a different editor, (days ago), that stated;

• However, they are used in a low percentage of firearms homicides in the U.S. overall, which are dominated by handguns rather than rifles.

AFAIC, this notation about the over-all low-percentage in firearm homicides for ARs compared to hand-guns, was a worthwhile, well-cited addition to the article. Why was it removed? This is Cavalryman V31's edit summary: "reduced to consensus on talk page" - what "consensus" is he referring to? (did I miss something? Is there a consensus for this "mass shooting" section? or any additions made to it? or the mention of mass-shootings, with a link, in the lead? or the removal of the handgun lime?) Otherwise, I don't know what "consensus" he's talking about. I do know that the handgun quote should to go back in. And, since people aren't waiting for the outcome of the RfC at Village Pump, or even bothering with proposals, discussions or consensus here, (they just keep adding stuff), we should, somehow, decide how much "mass-shooting" content should be added, and then stick to it, or else that section will continue to grow, to the point it out-WEIGHs the rest of the page. I'm not asking for it all to be removed, I just want the article kept neutral. - WOLFchild 11:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

1. "In Many U.S. States, 18 Is Old Enough to Buy a Semiautomatic". CBS News. The Associated Press. February 16, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018. On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings...
2. Balko, Radley (2013-07-09). Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. PublicAffairs. ISBN 9781610392129.
3. "Expanded Homicide Data Table 4". FBI. Retrieved 2018-02-26.

@Thewolfchild: seems reasonable - please go ahead and place these back in - if User:Cavalryman V31 responds back here and justifies removal then can have more discussion around this. Noting handgun role though as comparison seems appropriate. Shaded0 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shaded0: Appreciate the 'go ahead', but I just edited that section a couple hours ago and this page is under sanctions, so I'm looking to avoid more than one major edit, especially to the same section, within 24 hours. But if you're for it, you can do it right now yourself. The handgun line with refs in is my comment above, or you can pull it from the link of Cav-manV31's edit, which I added the diff for as well. Cheers - WOLFchild 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Shaded0 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Modules, Cartridges, etc.

@Thewellman: please discuss below here this section w/ suggested edits for discussion. See above per sanctions. Major additions probably need some discussion first.

• See diff: here

Shaded0 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

TheWellman's edit was a well-sourced, neutral and high-quality expansion of the article. What are your concerns, and how exactly do sanctions apply in this case? –dlthewave ☎ 21:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the material was a great add. If it was copied from another Wiki article we need to cite that other article so people can review the edit/talk history of the material (I've run into this myself). Springee (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The addition looked good to me. My only concern is perhaps it, or part of it, should be merged with the existing 'Variations and modularity' section.--Pharos (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have re-added. One minor thing that should be c/e'd. The below sections should probably be merged into two or fewer - since by the titles it looks to be overlapping concepts (same as noted by User:Pharos).

1. Modules
2. Variations and modularity
3. Cartridge variations

Shaded0 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my edit. I composed that edit in my sandbox without copying any text, so I don't think there should be any problems with undocumented history. I anticipated the possibility of overlap with existing text, but wanted to avoid the appearance of overwriting others' work. I would be happy to take a try at merging the noted sections, if that would be acceptable. Thewellman (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest redistributing text from the Variations and modularity section as follows:

• append the first two sentences to the end of the Sales section.
• delete the third sentence as a duplication of the last paragraph of the Modules section.
• insert a revision of the fourth sentence into the Cartridge variations section
• insert the second paragraph just before the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Modules section.

Thewellman (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @Thewellman: yes please go ahead. Much appreciated! Shaded0 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of "assault rifle" to describe these guns

We have an odd situation that defies logic. My addition of "assault rifle" has been deleted twice. This is the generic, "main", article for all the guns of this type, and they are all referred to in myriad RS as "assault rifles" and included in Category:Assault rifles, yet THIS article is excepted. Its absence in the category is noticeably odd.

Please explain the logic in that. Do you really want to enter Streisand effect territory and have all of Misplaced Pages descend on this article for a huge RfC which forces the issue? The article will rightly see a huge increase in sourcing, and a new section, just on that topic. Do you really want that, or will you quietly allow it to happen? I fear for the poor editor who is responsible, because the NRA won't be happy that they have drawn attention to the issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Do you really want to enter Streisand effect territory and have all of Misplaced Pages descend on this article for a huge RfC which forces the issue? The article will rightly see a huge increase in sourcing, and a new section, just on that topic. Do you really want that, or will you quietly allow it to happen?" - that is, um... an interesting take on collaborative discussion and consensus editing. What would the end result be of the 'Streisand-option'? "Huge increases in"... what? Content, sourced or not, that will put undue weight on part of the article and throw the neutrality of the whole page right out of balance? If I were the "poor editor" called upon to make that choice, I would say "f*ck Streisand and the horse she rode in on and do your worst." But that's just me. - WOLFchild 08:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

An assault weapon is, generally speaking, a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine -- for example, an AR-15 style rifle. An assault rifle looks quite similar, but is capable of automatic fire -- i.e. it can fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled one time. The two terms are very often confused or conflated, but, to provide our readers with accurate information, we are maintaining the distinction here. I'm under the impression that this has been generally agreed upon, though I could not easily provide a link to the relevant discussions. — Mudwater 01:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that the term "assault weapon" is itself somewhat controversial. Some people think that it was promulgated with the purpose of promoting more restrictive firearms regulations. — Mudwater 01:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a lede worth noting:

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity".

It is clearly about certain types of "semi-automatic firearms" (fortunately not my good old Ruger 10-22 ). In case you wonder about my weapons and hunting creds, I have owned a Ruger Blackhawk convertible 9mm/.357, a Colt Python .357, and Smith and Wesson .38, a Sako .30-06, and two Ruger 10-22s. Read my article about Reindeer hunting in Greenland. I have shot 16 deer, four in one day being the best, and two other times three in one day. A bolt action .30-06 with maximum 5-shot capacity works fine for hunting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The article is about semi-automatic rifles, not the military select fire models. That means it by default is not about assault rifles. That sources that aren't experts on firearms misuse the term doesn't mean we should. Springee (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The law (see above) is about certain types of semi-automatic rifles for civilian use, specifically the ones which are the subject of this article. All of them are in the Category, so this article should too. We must follow the preponderance of RS, not the protectionist literature and wordings from the NRA and sympathizers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The law above says "Assault Weapons" not "Assault Rifles". The article should be (if there is one) in the category of "Assault Weapons" but not "Assault Rifles". Also, please don't use phrases like "protectionist literature and wordings from the NRA and sympathizers". It can be read as not assuming good faith. Springee (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It says "Semi-automatic firearm", and the law and article mention rifles. If this article describes a type of rifle which all the RS used in this article prove is exempted from the law because they are somehow different, then the title of the article should be changed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And no where does it say "Assault Rifle". It does say "Assault Weapon". Springee (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The correct term for this rifle is assault weapon, not assault rifle. The assault rifle version of this is the M16, not the AR-15. Another RS to look at for the distinction is the AP style manual here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Federal Assault Weapons Ban covers both terms and also covers the exact rifles made for private citizens described in THIS article....but...if the term you'll accept is "assault weapon", then let's use "assault weapon" in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I would rather we stick with the more technical description for the intro part. After we get past the intro (but still in the lead) we can say that legally these are often classified as assault weapons. "Assault Weapon" is a very nebulous term that has many definitions. The only one that has been passed into US law doesn't apply to many AR-15 variants (basically all that were sold from 1994 to 2004). Instead we should leave it with only what is is indisputably, a semi-automatic rifle etc. Springee (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-auto is the most basic necessary criteria, among others. Putting it later in the lede would be okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The first line of the "terminology" section says "In 1956, a lightweight assault rifle was designed for military use by ArmaLite and designated the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15." The original AR-15 was certainly an assault rifle, since it was a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge. Since "assault rifle" is used in this sense to distinguish the military AR-15 from the semi-automatic, it doesn't make sense to refer to the semi-automatic version as an assault rifle as well, in the lead or elsewhere.

Also, I agree with Springee, the Colt AR-15 was legally defined an assault weapon, but other types of AR-15 style rifles were not defined as assault weapons, and continued to be sold under the federal ban. Additionally, "assault weapon" doesn't seem to have any generally accepted definition, as different laws vary in their definitions. A given rifle might be an assault weapon under Californian law, but not under New York law or under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (when it was active). Maybe it makes sense to discuss assault weapons bans legislation and how they affected AR-15 style rifles in the body of the article, or even to mention it in the lead, but I don't think we can say "AR-15 style rifles are assault weapons", since the two categories often do not overlap. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I fully support having some part of the article talk about the impact of the AW ban as well as how various state laws have impacted the design of AR based rifles sold legally in those states. Note this could turn very political so I would suggest keeping things as technical and fact based as possible. Springee (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the list, Heckler & Koch HK416 and Barrett REC7 are described as assault rifles in their respective articles. This might be worth a mention in the article, but we shouldn't apply the term to the entire category. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ummm....everyone take a look at the article history. This was resolved a number of hours ago. It was moved further down in the lead and is qualified by "often".

It's still true that the article would be greatly improved with a section dealing with this obviously notable subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"assault-style"

• Comment -- some sources use "assault-style" to describe these weapons, such as:

• Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, which states: "Assault-stile semiautomatic weapons are distinguished from others in that they have large clips holding 20-30 bullets, are more compact in design, have barrels under 20 in, take intermedia sized cartridges,...] etc.

I think this ("assault-style") may be a way to bridge the common use of "assault" rifles vs military terminology, as described in the assault rifle article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"...they have large "clips" holding 20-30 bullets" - I don't see how we can consider this a source when they don't even know what they're talking about. And, I'm not clear on why there is this burning need with some people to add the word "assault" at all. The semi-auto only, civilian variant is not an "assault-anything" It was not designed and marketed for civilians to storm the beaches of anywhere or kick in doors and clear rooms. They are primarily for sport. Hobby target shooting, various amateur and professional competitions, collecting, and hunting (sport, pest-control and sustenance). In some cases, if necessary, self-defense, but even this is more of a personal choice than an intended commercial purpose.

This is one of the main reasons why the term "modern sporting rifle" was introduced, to separate the civilian variant from the law enforcement and military variants, with full-auto and 'burst' capabilities that are specifically intended for lethal use. It's terribly unfortunate that a small group of people have illegally mis-used these products, and with such tragic consequences, but that doesn't make them "assault-rifles", "assault-style" or "assault-" anything-else. Just because people in the media and government have chosen an incorrect name, whether it be deliberately or through ignorance, to help sensationalize and demonize this product, to get ratings, sell newspapers, push legislations, win elections, etc., etc.,... does not mean we need to lower our standards and intentionally make the same error.

When we have articles such as "Winston Assault Cigarettes", "Coors Assault Draft" (and Coors Assault Lite, less filling!), and the "Toyota Assault Prius", to "bridge" between articles about others products that have killed people, then we can talk about "civilian assault rifles". Until then, can we focus on building an encyclopaedia that is actually factual and neutral? - WOLFchild 15:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment seems like an attempt to "right great wrongs" and ignores the societal debates and massive RS coverage and use of the term. THAT is what we base our content on. Keep in mind that the creator of the AR-15 and his family do not believe that civilians should own this type of weapon. It was not created for civilian use, but with small moderations it is now the most popular rifle used for mass shootings. It has no legitimate use as a hunting weapon which other hunting rifles cannot serve as well or better. The rather sarcastic comment I heard the other day went something like this: "A man who feels the need to use an AR-15 as a hunting weapon is neither a man nor a hunter."

AR-15s are created for killing lots of people very quickly, IOW warfare. For hunting, a bolt action 5-shot weapon does the job perfectly well. That's been my experience in Greenland, where 5-shot bolt action is the maximum allowed. No semi-autos. One of my friends in Greenland shot all five members of a small flock of reindeer with such a weapon. He just shot the ones at the back of the flock first. That takes skill. The ones in front didn't realize what was going on before it was too late. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Do you have sources that describe its use in target shooting, collecting, hunting, etc? This would be good information to add to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If I was planning on adding content to that effect to the article, I'm sure some sources wouldn't be difficult to find. But as I have no such plans at the moment, no. But if you're interested, I'm sure you find such sources with relative ease. - WOLFchild 02:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Your comment seems like an attempt to "right great wrongs"..."

• Says the guy that then immediately goes on very preachy, personal, unsupported, POV-ish anti-gun lecture.

"...and ignores the societal debates and massive RS coverage and use of the term."

• This isn't about "societal debates". Articles about mass-shootings, firearms controversy and gun-control legislation all contain that "massive RS coverage" already. No one, (well at least not me) is trying to stifle any debates or hide any information about these issues

""THAT is what we base our content on."

• This is an encyclopaedia. Articles should be about the subject of the article. THAT is what we base our content on.

"Keep in mind that the creator of the AR-15 and his family do not believe that civilians should own this type of weapon"

• First off, Eugene Stoner died 20 years ago, so his current "beliefs" on the matter would be difficult to obtain. But as for his family, what do you expect them to say when reporters come banging on their door after a mass-shooting involving an AR-15? But regardless, their "beliefs" have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy.
  

"It was not created for civilian use, but with small moderations - it is now the most popular rifle used for mass shootings."

• That is a text-book non-sequitur. It was created for the military, and like many, many other things (beyond counting, really), initially created for the military, it was adopted for civilian use. Haven't you ever watched Tactical to Practical? As for their "popularity" in mass-shootings... couldn't that be because of the way they are sensationalized by the media, politicians and gun-control advocates? Or that they are relatively inexpensive and there are so many of them? Chicken and the egg...

"It has no legitimate use as a hunting weapon"

• That is your opinion, and one that is clearly outweighed by fact.

"which other hunting rifles cannot serve as well or better."

• huh?

"The rather sarcastic comment I heard the other day went something like this: "A man who feels the need to use an AR-15 as a hunting weapon is neither a man nor a hunter.""

• Really? Well, why don't you put that right into the lead of the article? Oh, wait...

"AR-15s are created for killing lots of people very quickly, IOW warfare"

• Yes... the ones created for the military certainly were created for just that. But you're confusing those with the civilian variants that are were re-designed and re-purposed for civilian use. For sport. For killing lotsa' paper targets, and food, and pests, (and, perhaps, the armed piece of shit that's trying to break into someone's house to steal, rape and/or murder). No firearms manufacturer has ever marketed an AR-15 for the purpose of mass-murder.

"For hunting, a bolt action 5-shot weapon does the job perfectly well."

• No disagreement here (except that I'm not really a proponent of hunting solely for sport.) But an AR-15 also "does the job perfectly well", perhaps even better in some cases. But at the end of the day, who are we to tell hunters what tools they should and shouldn't be hunting with?

"That's been my experience in Greenland, where 5-shot bolt action is the maximum allowed. No semi-autos."

• No offence but... so what? (but I will say, if the AR-15 was allowed there, guaranteed some guys would use it. Then that would be part of "your experience" there as well, wouldn't it?)

"One of my friends in Greenland shot all five members of a small flock of reindeer with such a weapon. He just shot the ones at the back of the flock first. That takes skill. The ones in front didn't realize what was going on before it was too late."

• Oh, great... another one of your personal little anecdotes. (Where do I begin?) Well, first off, this isn't the "Greenland Misplaced Pages" Next, your "friend" is not a reliable source. And lastly, wiping out an entire family of reindeer? You're actually bragging about that? I'm aware of the reindeer population issues there, and I'm sure that it was part of some cull and that all that meat went into people's freezers. But humans, with modern firearms, blasting away at a herd of dumb, peaceful herivores on an open tundra in not exactly up there with the guys on the list of Longest recorded sniper kills. Taking out armed, human, enemy combatants from 2km to 3.5km... THAT takes skill.

But all that aside, the maintaining of balance and neutrality of this, or any other firearms-related article, is where my interest in all this lays. Cheers - WOLFchild 02:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: We're talking about whether or not "assault-style rifle" would be an acceptable middle ground. Any thought? –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly not anti-gun, and I don't believe in killing animals for sport. All our hunting was strictly for food. Inuits, and others who live there, are not hunter-gatherers, but strictly hunters, and all for food. Reindeer/caribou is delicious venison. Try it sometime. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"I'm certainly not anti-gun" - Just anti-AR-15 apparently. - WOLFchild 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, along with most Americans and RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Most"....? Riiiight... that's why it's sooo popular. And, I don't think you understand "Americans". As for "RS", I addressed that below. - WOLFchild 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I AM American, and statistics show that most Americans are for banning these rifles in some fashion. Even most NRA members are for more gun control measures. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"I AM American" - yikes. That just makes your comments that much more questionable. - WOLFchild 17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please drop the personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What "personal attack"...? You made some grand claim that spoke for the "majority of all Americans", and when I took that, along with all your other comments here, into consideration, it gave me the impression that you perhaps had a misunderstanding of Americans (many on WP often do). You then replied that "You ARE American". OK, great... but based solely on that, I'm supposed to now blindly and completely accept everything you have to say on behalf of America? Sorry, but... no. That just leaves the "yikes" bit... if you find that word to somehow be a "personal attack", well... we'll have to agree to disagree. But all that aside, I am curious as to why you think it's ok to make accusations of WP:OWN, which can be considered WP:NPA if they're baseless, and you also seem to think it's ok to alter other people's talk page comments, which afaik, it's not. Lengthy tp sections often have breaks to make contributions easier, and since the break/slash sub-heading is directly above my comment, and directly reflects the content of my comment, I'll ask that you please leave it be, thank you. Now, you've set the tone here, my friend. However you want this discussion to proceed is up to you. You want to stay strictly on topic? Fine by me. You want to discuss the topic with some harmless, light-hearted banter (which considering the seriousness of this topic, it couldn't hurt to keep things light), is fine as well, but if you want to start involving policy, whether you're invoking it or breaking it, then you're on your own because I'm not interested. As I said, my main interest is keeping this article's content neutral, balanced and focused on it's subject, because afaic, right now it's failing on all three counts. - WOLFchild 22:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Other disagreements aside, I would caution against putting too much stock in the claim that some majority wants something. This article illustrates the problem with asking people what they think about something when they often aren't well versed on the subject. ]

About two-thirds of the respondents described "assault weapons" as guns that fire rapidly, guns that can fire a large number of rounds without reloading, guns with a lot of "power," or guns used by the military. More than a quarter described them as "machine guns," "automatics," or the equivalent (e.g., "multiple rounds with just one pull of the trigger").

This link provides some of the answers to the question, what is an assault weapon ]. Note that in the details of the poll their are conflicting answers. This basically illustrates the issue with putting too much emphasis on what X% want when most are not familiar with the issue. Springee (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"sporting style"

@Dlthewave: TBH, I thought I made my thoughts clear on that just above. But just the same, the civilian variant of the AR-15, which is the basis of this article, and all the semi-auto, AR-15 patterned rifles that are on the market now, are not "assault rifles", they are not "assault-style rifles", they are not "assault-"anything. The word doesn't belong here, and adding it, to (directly or indirectly) describe the civilian variant, semi auto AR-15 as "assault-style" would be UNDUE, WEIGHT. We already have articles about assault rifles and assault weapons, not to mention full-auto military variants of the AR-15, such as Armalite AR-15, M-16 rifle and M-4 carbine. This the subject of this article is intended for sporting use. If you look at the version of this page prior to February 14th, "assault" was only mentioned once (no link), and that was to distinguish the MSR (as it was titled at that point) from full-auto, military variants (plus there was a link in the 'See also' section). "Assault" is now mentioned three times (not counting the "See also" entry), all linked, with both "assault weapon" and the (long dead) Federal Assault Weapons Ban now noted in the lead, and "assault rifle" now in the opening sentence of the main body of the article. So the fact is, this page is already out of balance, and adding "assault-style" isn't a compromise, it's overkill (and that's not even taking into account the multiple additions of "mass-shooting" info). This is a "sporting-style rifle". Period.

And, quite frankly, I'm not sure why you are asking me this. Shouldn't you be pushing for a hold on any more of these controversial changes and additions, until your RfC is done? Wasn't that the purpose of the RfC in the first place? Meanwhile, this article has pushed past the point of informing about the AR-15, to demonizing it. - WOLFchild 04:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What do RS say about AR-15 style rifles and assault weapons? That is what counts. Are you pretending they don't make that connection, whether it's right or wrong in your opinion? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's just it. You seem to think the "connection" is what is important here, where I believe it's the "right or wrong" that actually matters most. - WOLFchild 17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are several media sources, that we've long-recognized as RS, that refer to civilian ARs as "assault"-something. But how many of those are opinion pieces written with an anti-gun slant? Or are quoting someone with an anti-gun slant? What basis do they actually have to use the word "assault"? And, aren't we responsible to ensure that even if information comes from a typically recognized "reliable source", that it is still factually based and encyclopaedic? I'm sure that's in the RS policy, somewhere (I don't need to go hunting for it, do I? Please tell me you know what I'm talking about). Any misuse aside, this rifle is intended to be, and is marketed as, a sporting rifle. Not an assault rifle (or even an assault style rifle). There is a difference between "assault" and "sport" (and again, please tell me you know the difference). Trying to paint this rifle as an "assault"-anything in an encyclopaedia article is wrong and irresponsible, because that's not what it is. - WOLFchild 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we know "whether it's right or wrong in your opinion", but that's not what counts here. It's what RS say, and we base content on them, and our policies do not exclude opinions in RS. On the contrary. Sources, not editors' personal opinions, are the basis of our content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's my opinion, that's what we're doing here after all, debating opinions. And yes, we use RS for content, but not blindly. - WOLFchild 05:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the RfC is about something different. –dlthewave ☎ 04:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh I know what it's about. Adding info about mass-shootings to articles like this one, and while it drags on, with no end, and certainly no consensus in sight, a whole shit-ton of mass-shooting info has been piled onto this page. You started the RfC for a reason, so why you are silent on inappropriate editing taking place here? - WOLFchild 05:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The Mass Shootings section is very brief.

I generally don't consider good-faith edits to be inappropriate. If there's an objection to the content, we discuss it, and that's exactly what we're trying to do here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I thought that was the purpose of the RfC. Yet, editors are adding content with a particular slant here without discussing it on the tp first, and even resorted to tag-team edit-warring to keep it in when another editor removed it (and at the same time, they tried to remove balanced, sourced content they didn't like). That should have initiated the BRD cycle, with discussion and consensus on whether to add their content, but instead one of them insisted the editor trying to remove it go and seek consensus for the removal! I mentioned this just above already, with diffs. That is not "good faith editing', it's not editing by consensus, the content is not neutral, it's disputed and therefore controversial, and yet it's still there, and now the only "discussions" I'm seeing is these editors insisting that even more WEIGHTy content being added. This is not how things are supposed to be done on WP.- WOLFchild 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Various source make the distinction between the two, just because a few make a mistake does not mean we should repeat that mistake. It would be a detriment to our readers. PackMecEng (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you're onto something important. It sounds like the article should deal with "the distinction between the two", IOW it should have sections clearly labeled for each. That way the types which are not covered by the Assault Weapons ban law could be in one section, making it clear in what way they differ from those in the "other" section about "assault weapons" covered by the law.

This is, after all, the "main" article for the subject, so it should be MUCH larger and have several more sections which summarize all the subarticles related to these rifles, with a "main" link to each subarticle. The easiest method is to copy the lede from each subarticle into a section here. WP:SPINOFF describes how this would be a "2. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections." Currently this is a rather small article. It has great potential. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue I have with that is this article is about the civilian, semi-automatic versions only. None of which could reasonably be classified as assault rifle since none are automatic.PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

ec... PackMecEng, you are correct that a fully "automatic" mode option seems to be used for assault rifles, whereas these semi-automatic rifles are still classified as assault weapons. Therefore we should stick with the latter to avoid confusion. If we deliberately stick with "assault rifle" (or even "assault-style rifle") here, we'd be enshrining a red herring and creating confusion.

Here's the "assault weapon" lede, where the various terms are explained:

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. Some firearms are specified by name. At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, the media, and the firearms industry itself. It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode.

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goode130116 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Babay121222 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Levs130131 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference Tartaro1995 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Blake130117 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Kauffman121218 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

That the difference seems to be a "style" issue, rather than a purely "auto vs semi-auto" issue, a consensus can decide if we will use the "assault-style" terminology. If we choose not to use it, then we should just stick with the established consensus of "assault weapon", and we can add the qualifier that these semi-automatic rifles are "often" classified as assault weapons, as we do in the article. That allows for specific exceptions for certain models if RS and legal decisions have made such an exception for that particular model.

As usual, the bottom line is what RS and laws say, well knowing that they often conflict with the attempts by advocacy groups and fans to rebrand these rifles as "America's rifle" and "modern sporting rifles". Our job is to document both conflicting views, just as we do with any subject which involves controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

From the quotes and sources you listed above semi vs auto is a clear defining difference between the two and since this article is about the semi version assault weapon would be the appropriate term. That said, this issue certainly seems to have sparked confusion, if linking to the assault weapon article is not enough for clarification between weapon and rifle. I could see the need for a small subsection detailing the difference. Though even if we did that, the appropriate thing to do would still use its proper designation throughout the article in referencing it which is assault weapon, and disregard assault rifle. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Have a look at Springee's comment regarding these "sources". And no, we shouldn't use "assault weapon" to describe the subject of this article. There is already an Assault weapon article. This article is (or at least it was, and should be) about the semi-auto civilian variant of the AR-15 and it's intended purpose as a "sporting style rifle". When it's used as intended, in target shooting ("assaulting" paper targets) and competitions, it's not even being used as a "weapon". - WOLFchild 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we remove the HK416 from the article, then? Dlthewave (talk) 15:50, March 5, 2018‎ (UTC)

Of course. It's a full-auto military variant. Not a sporting rifle used by civilians. - WOLFchild 17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, the listing here at AR-15 Style Rifle doesn't show the HK416, instead it lists the MR223 (the semi-automatic version marketed to civilians). It might help if someone edited the link in the "List of models" section so that it points at the appropriate section in the HK article, seen here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It's actually listed as MR556. Thanks for catching that. I fixed the link. –dlthewave ☎ 02:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

(@PackMecEng) Exactly! Thank you. (@BullRangifer) "This is, after all, the "main" article for the subject". No, this is an article that you and a couple other editors are trying to change the scope of so that it becomes your "main" article for the message you trying to convey. This "subject" of this article is the AR-15 pattern, of semi-auto civilian sporting rifles. Since the rights to the design have expired, numerous companies now make this type of rifle (and/or carbine and pistol) based on this pattern. It is enormously popular, to the point of ubiquity, and this is why it gets an article. Trying to cram in as much info about "mass-shootings", gun-control advocacy, and media misrepresentation does not belong. At least not to the extent you guys are trying for. Links to relevant articles in the "See also" section should suffice. Meanwhile, there is UNDUE content here, added without consensus, that needs to be trimmed, altered and/or removed. You can go on about "RS" all you like, but RS is not a simple narrow policy of "if it's sourced, it goes in". There are different aspects of that policy that come into play here, such WP:RSCONTEXT, (also known as "Context matters"... because it does). There is also WP:RS AGE, WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED, WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSBREAKING. Basically, just because some RS might "say stuff", doesn't mean it automatically get put into an article.- WOLFchild 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm....ownership issues much? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have issues with ownership you and some others editors here seem to be asserting over this article. Constantly adding and changing content, without any regard for neutrality or balance, and certainly not bothering to propose, discuss or seek consensus for any of it on the talk page. Your latest edit is a perfect example. The "AR plays an oversized role"...? And your repeated use of the term "special pleading" only reinforces your misunderstanding of it. And, I don't recall seeing a WP:SPECIALPLEADING policy that permits you to randomly change sourced content to support your personal preferences, or remove it outright. - WOLFchild 17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement to discuss changes before making them. Since BullRangifer's edits were disputed, we're currently having a discussion in an attempt to reach consensus. The process will go more smoothly if we focus on the content itself and report any inappropriate behaviour at the appropriate venue. Even if the current version is "wrong", we will eventually reach consensus and the article will be changed to reflect it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't recall writing that "discussion about changes before making them was a requirement". If you could point that out for me, I would appreciate it. That said, I certainly would urge editors to discuss changes before making them, especially on articles like this, with a controversial subject and during a time when many, deeply held opposing views are actively fueling the edits being made. Wouldn't you agree that proposing changes beforehand is not only a mark of good collaboration, but an effective way to reduce disruption to articles? But, that's not being done here, is it? And I don't see you saying fa to any of the editors

here who are adding (and re-adding) controversial and disputed content, regardless of POV, UNDUE or WEIGHT. Didn't you write an RfC about this? How's that going anyway? - WOLFchild 07:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Never intended for civilian use

• AR-15 Inventor's Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon, Time magazine
• Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians, NBC News

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all commercially successful firearms were based on military designs, because only military use can provide funding for the level of engineering and testing required for acceptably reliable firearms. The 5-shot bolt-action rifle used for hunting in Greenland is based on the Mauser used a century ago in the war to end all wars. The modular aspect of the AR-15 style receiver is an important feature for the sporting modifications made by civilian hunters or competitive shooters who require special stock dimensions because of their size or who shoot left handed or require special sighting devices because of asymmetrical visual acuity or hand and arm coordination. (LEFT HAND, Moriarti Armaments) (Left Handed Upper Halves, Stag Arms) (LEFT HANDED Black Rain Ordnance) Such modifications are less available in modern production of other rifles, and often require expensive services of gunsmiths to modify older firearms. Skilled gunsmiths are becoming scarce; and firearm transfer regulations increasingly complicate transportation of whole firearms to and from distant gunsmiths, while modules and parts can be shipped directly to the owner who can install them on the modular AR-15 style receiver. Thewellman (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

More on terminology/style

It's interesting that NYT uses "military-style" to describe these weapons, such as here: Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’.

Here's an excerpt from another article that discusses military rifles vs civilian AR-15 & similar:

With AR-15s, Mass Shooters Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops
by C.J. Chivers

I think that could be a useful source to add to the section: AR-15_style_rifle#Differences_from_military_rifles. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

When comparing the civilian and military rifles I would suggest we stick with publications that are experts in the area. A firearms focused publication is going to be more knowledgeable regarding the details and differences between civilian and military rifles. The NYT is going to be a better source for broader impact information. The only reason to use the NYT for such technical information is if we couldn't find a better source. Also worth noting that article has an error. The military rifles went from continuous fire (full auto) to burst fire (full auto for 3 shots at a time). Both are "automatic" under US law. Much of the rest of that article is fear mongering hype rather than rational analysis. Springee (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have a concern with the accuracy of the source, I would suggest that you bring it to WP:RSN. "Fully automatic" is commonly used to refer to continuous firing as compared to burst mode, even though both are automatic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. If we want to source facts of a technical nature then we should use the best sources for that information. To address your defense of the article error, the author didn't say the continuous mode was replaced with burst but instead suggested the military rifles are semi-auto. Regardless, I'm not sure what facts we would source from this article that wouldn't be better sourced from more knowledgeable sources. Springee (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps a authoritative source on firearms would be more appropriate for technical descriptions. PackMecEng (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Where is it implied that military rifles are semi-auto? –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did read somewhere that the Marines M16A2 and A4 are now semi-auto only, and each fire team has one guy that carries a full-auto M27 IAR, and each squad has an M249 SAW. The army's M4s were full-auto, but are switching to selectable 3-round-burst & semi. I'll see if I can find a source. - WOLFchild 04:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: the article in question does not state that military versions are semi-automatic only. Where are you getting that from exactly? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It can be reasonably inferred because they refer to the military moving away from full auto which I suspect most readers would take to mean single shot. Springee (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where they use the words "moving away." I do see the part where it says that based on what we learned in Vietnam, we switched over in the 1980s to using M16s without the fully automatic function and emphasized controlled firing (which was the right decision of course). I have 30+ years of service with the Army and have fired quite a few M16/M4's as well as civilian AR-15 variants over the years; from my read of the article, it's spot-on with regard to there being little difference in lethality between using an M16 versus an AR-15 in perpetrating a mass shooting like what happened at Parkland. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)

The article specifically states that military rifles have "burst" mode and, on certain models, "full automatic" mode. It also states that troops are trained to use them in semiautomatic mode. I'm not sure how a reader would infer otherwise. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I missed where I said "moving away" was a quote from the article. The article actually said:

The National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups highlight the fully automatic feature in military M4s and M16s. But the American military, after a long experience with fully automatic M16s reaching back to Vietnam, decided by the 1980s to issue M16s, and later M4s, to most conventional troops without the fully automatic function, and to train them to fire in a more controlled fashion.

Since they didn't specify that the full auto was replaced with burst it would be reasonable for a reader to assume the military went to semi-auto vs burst. Anyway, that is the paragraph where I think a reader may infer something that is generally not true. You might disagree but short of a survey of NYT readers we aren't going to be able to settle this. Springee (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't "article error" then (to quote your words above), instead its a selective misinterpretation. Surveying readers isn't necessary and there is nothing wrong with using this source if we want to, especially since the article here can be written to be very specific when discussing semi-auto vs burst. The author is a former USMC infantry officer who wrote a book on the history of assault rifles, which is considerably better credentials for a reporter on this topic than most. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

C.J. Chivers

I added some information from the NY Times article, but the part about military vs. civilian use was reverted. Should this be included? My opinion is that a well-rounded article about a firearm should contain relevant information about its use, not just its design. –dlthewave ☎ 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure at the moment, but it strikes me that the current section "Differences from military rifles" is not well written because of the way it uses a bulletized list, kind of like the one that was recently reverted out of the "Use in mass shootings" section. The section header describes them as "differences," but then confuses the reader by listing two things that are different (automatic and burst mode) atop three things that are essentially the same (semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and detachable magazines). It really needs to be re-written prose style for clarity, along with incorporating some of the information from the article above about how things changed from the 1960's to the 1980's (from automatic mode to burst mode). I will take a stab at that on my next edit. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, please have a look, you can see the re-writing of the section here. Thoughts, anyone? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a major improvement. I agree that the previous version was very confusing. Thanks. — Mudwater 00:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's much clearer now. –dlthewave ☎ 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The prose is an improvement but we should cite things to a neutral article. The gun politics and editorial opinions should not be in this section. The new text contains a number of WP:COAT comments. I'll take a crack at further cleanup when I get a chance. Springee (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- the author of the NYT article is "a former Marine infantry officer and the author of The Gun, a history of assault rifles and their effects upon security and war".

Which firearms focused publications would be recommended? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

First, the primary issues with the new material are WP:COAT and WP:NPOV. The section is supposed to be a simple discussion of the differences between the military and civilian AR type rifles yet it is filled with and sourced to an article that is clearly arguing for restrictions on civilian ownership (and 11+ round magazines). At the high level differences highlighted can be summed up as military version is select fire, either burst or full auto. The rest of the relevant NYT material was cometary. The section doesn't mention that the select fire models are subject to the 1934 Firearms Act and other related restrictions. The short military history of the M16 variants is interesting but used to push a POV rather than just inform. Additional relevant information could include rather than the COAT would be the differences between the receiver, bolt carrier group, the trigger group etc. It would also be worth discussing how the semi-auto and select fire parts are incompatible with one another. The NYT article is clearly has a POV. The basic facts it presents could be sourced to any number of neutral sources. The rest is appropriate for an article on gun control but not for this article. Somewhat ironically the material about reduced capacity magazines for hunting as well as a pump action AR derivative were left in the section even though the sources make no claims about these being military versions. In the past I've read some articles illustrating the technical differences between the mechanisms. I'll try to find one of those articles and rework the section. I don't think this will happen right away. Springee (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Other articles

• Here is an article that discusses the practical, sporting uses of the AR-15 for hunting;

TIME.com; Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill Using an AR-15

I think this could be a useful addition to the article. - WOLFchild 04:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, a hunting/sporting section would be a great way to expand the article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Here is an article that discusses the sporting uses of the AR-15;

thespec.com ‘I’m a very proud owner:’ Fans of AR-15 explain their weapon’s appeal

There are examples of the AR-15 being used for amateur/hobby target shooting as well as a young girl and her father that own and use multiple AR-15s for competeing in organized shooting competitions. Some of this content would be useful for the article. There is, however, another example of an opposing opinion on the rifle that adds balance to this article. - WOLFchild 05:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Here is an article where firearms manufacturers confirm the sporting intent of the AR-15, cast light on the real problem behind it's misuse;

cnbc.com AR-15s are not the problem, manufacturers say after rifle-wielding teenage gunman kills 17 people at Florida school

The article also mentions that Smith & Wesson market their AR-15s as "Modern Sporting Rifles", and one commenter makes the point that a gun in the right hands can actually save lives. Some good points that could be worthwhile inclusions in the article. - WOLFchild 05:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: I've removed the large copy-pasted texts above. Please do not paste copyrighted text anywhere, including article talk pages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Didn't occur to me that it was any kind of copyvio if we're using it on a talk page and giving full attribution. But, the links are still there so it's not a big loss. Thanks for letting us know. - WOLFchild 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - these don't strike me as usable. Note:

• "In interviews (...), leaders of 15 state shooting groups...";
• "AR-15s are not the problem, manufacturers say";
• "Fans of AR-15 explain their weapon’s appeal"

These would be reliable sources for their own opinions, but nature of this commentary makes them borderline WP:SPIP. Expert 3rd party opinions would be preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"these don't strike me as neutral or usable" - and I am truly shocked at that, but you're missing the point of them entirely, which is AR-15s aren't just military-style-assault-weapons used by deranged psychospaths on kill-crazy-murder-sprees. They're tools, they're intended for sporting purposes and they're used for sporting purposes. People use them for hunting, and not just trophy-collecting, but pest-control, livestock and property defence, animal population control, protection and of course food. Other people use them for hobby-target-shooting, also known as "plinking" or "punching paper". And yet other people, whole families even, use them for competitions, amateur and professional. For every AR-15 used in a mass-shooting, there are a million more being used for legitimate sporting purposes by their legal owners. These activities aren't just being promoted by "Guns & Ammo" or "guns.com", but confirmed by clearly reliable sources such as TIME, CNBC and The Hamilton Spectator (which isn't even American, it's up there in Canada, which isn't exactly gun-central). These were simply presented as examples of the intended legitimate, sporting uses of these items, to help counter the non-stop POV content you and a couple other users have been dumping onto articles like this since the Stoneman shooting. You seem to care more about getting a message out than maintaining a neutral balance on these pages. Don't preach guidelines and "neutrality" to me until you are willing to follow the policies & guidelines here yourself and keep your own contributions more neutral. - WOLFchild 04:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Don't preach guidelines and "neutrality" to me until you are willing to follow the policies & guidelines here yourself and keep your own contributions more neutral, please keep the discussions focused on content, not contributors. (You have also selectively quoted me, as I modified my comment here, before anyone responded: ). Please don't personalise discussions unnecessarily.

I commented on the sources: they do not meet requirements laid out in WP:IRS, and I indicated why: WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY. These sources relay opinions by shooting groups, fans, and manufacturers. These are reliable for their own opinions, but that's not the expert, independent sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"please keep the discussions focused on content, not contributors"

• While I have commented on content that you contributed, the manner in which you've contributed it and the effect your contributions have had on some articles, I haven't made comments about just you.

"You have also selectively quoted me, as I modified my comment here, before anyone responded"

• Be careful with your accusations. When I opened the edit window, you hadn't made that change, it was still posted. While I was typing out my post, proof-reading, previewing, re-doing part of it, proof-reading and previewing again several more times for tweaks and typos, you were making changes I had no way of knowing about. I finally posted my comment and then went on to other things, both onWP & IRL. So, to be clear, I didn't "selectively quote" you, as your accusation states, I accurately quoted what you wrote and what I read.

"Please don't personalise discussions unnecessarily"

• I could as the same of you and your wild and false accusations. I'm not personalizing this. I am however critical of some of your contributions, and I've stated why. If someone doesn't agree with what you edit or the way you edit it, do you always take it personally?

"I commented on the sources: they do not meet requirements laid out in WP:IRS, and I indicated why: WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY. These sources relay opinions by shooting groups, fans, and manufacturers. These are reliable for their own opinions, but that's not the expert, independent sources"

• I posted reliable sources that support the contention that the AR-15 is intended as a sporting rifle, and that it is indeed used in many sporting pursuits. Have any of your sources that you've listed here or actually used in articles, contain opinions by members of the media? Or quotes by politicians? Or are they all 3rd party, neutral experts? (this is not a rhetorical question) Now is that all? Apparently not. Seems you felt the need to post on my talk page about this as well, despite by clear request to the contrary. You wrote;

Battleground behaviour concerns at AR-15 style rifle

"Re this comment plus others at Talk:AR-15 style rifle, please do not personalise disputes unnecessarily. Here's the relevant section from Arbitration Request decisions: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Battleground_conduct."

• I addressed that above.

"Please be aware how your comments are coming across. I respectfully request that you strike the personal comments directed towards me. --K.e.coffman 04:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's something familiar about this... almost like I've seen this somewhere else before. Have you gone to other editor's talk pages, asking them to change or remove comments that mention you and/or your edits? Just curious. As for here, just what is it you want me to remove here? - WOLFchild 06:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, I hadn't seen a reply yet to the pair of questions I posed; are all your sources that you've listed so far, both here and in the article, 3rd party, neutral, expert sources that follow WP:IRS and WP:SPIP? Also, you noted concerns about one of my replies. If you could point out the exact problem, I'm more than willing to make changes, if this will help move things forward. Thanks - WOLFchild 02:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additional text regarding left handed shooters

I suggest adding something like the following paragraph as the last part of the Modules section, possibly as a subsection entitled: Left handed shooters

Most rifles are designed to be fired by placing the butt against the right shoulder while using a finger of the right hand to pull the trigger. Sighting with the right eye places the shooter's face adjacent to the left side of the buttstock behind the receiver. Using the left arm to support the forward part of the rifle rotates the shooter's chest toward the receiver. Most rifles eject spent cartridges from the right side of the receiver away from a right handed shooter. This is a disadvantage for the tenth of the population who are left handed, for the third of the population whose left eye is dominant, and for those who have suffered disabling injuries to their right hand or eye; because holding these rifles against their left shoulder for maximum accuracy causes the rifle to eject hot spent cases toward the chest, neck or face of a left handed shooter. Relatively few rifles are designed for left handed use because of a smaller market share for a similar investment in machining costs. The modular design of AR-15 style rifles reduces manufacturing costs to accommodate left-handed shooters, and has encouraged several manufacturers to offer specialized parts to convert right handed AR-15 style rifles for left handed use.

Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Craige, John Houston The Practical Book of American Guns (1950) Bramhall House pp. 108–114
2. Hardyck C, Petrinovich LF (1977). "Left-handedness". Psychol Bull. 84 (3): 385–404. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.3.385. PMID 859955.
3. Chaurasia BD, Mathur BB (1976). "Eyedness". Acta Anat (Basel). 96 (2): 301–5. doi:10.1159/000144681. PMID 970109.
4. Boddington, Craig. "Rifles For Left-Out Lefties". American Rifleman. Retrieved 6 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
5. "LEFT HAND". Moriarti Armaments. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
6. "Left Handed Upper Halves". Stag Arms. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
7. "LEFT HANDED". Black Rain Ordnance. Retrieved 6 March 2018.

• Support - addition of this content. It's well sourced, informative and non-controversial. It's the kind of content this article should have. - WOLFchild 06:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is good content, but it's longer than it needs to be; we could probably summarize in one or two sentences that the modularity makes it easier to have a left-handed weapon.--Pharos (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Pharos, most of this could be replaced with a link to Bias against left-handed people#Weapons. –dlthewave ☎ 07:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment -- seems like too much detail; a couple of sentences would be sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Question - @Thewellman:, I was just reading your addition to the article, (and thank you for that btw), but was curious about the reference to people who are "left eye dominant". I don't see (pardon the pun) the relevance, because (afaict) if the user is right-handed, they would still position the rifle to their right shoulder, regardless of which eye they use to sight with. The ref you attached is a book, so I was unable to follow up with it to see what effect eye dominance is supposed to have. Can you clarify this? Thanks - WOLFchild 18:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just from personal experience, I have Amblyopia where my right eye is not so good. I am right handed but for rifles I shoulder on the left. For pistols I shoot right handed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It may be useful to consider the effects of learned behaviors as opposed to alternatives. I was nearly ambidextrous as a youth, but learned to write and use most tools with my right hand. An exception is left-handed use of a trackball learned operating early Naval Tactical Data System consoles before the days of personal computers. The console trackball was positioned for use by the left hand so the right hand could be used to write with grease pencil on the console cathode ray tube showing computer-generated graphics on a plan position indicator radar screen. Although it is fairly easy to sight with either eye when firing a handgun with either hand, many are taught to shoot rifles right-handed. This teaching can often be traced to military instructions on how to use the standard issue rifle designed for right-handed use. After shooting rifles right-handed for half a century, I trained my left trigger finger to take advantage of a clearer sight picture with my left eye as my eyes aged. I am now shooting tighter groups than I ever did in my youth, and wish I had recognized the advantages earlier. Since the percentage of the population with a dominant left eye exceeds the percentage who are left handed, growing awareness of the significance of ocular dominance in marksmanship may create a larger demand for left-handed rifles (and hopefully more enlightened training programs for those who use rifles professionally.) Thewellman (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

list vs prose

@Dlthewave: - regarding your comment on my talk page, in reference to the revert I made to this article; ""Looks awful" is not a valid reason to revert an edit. Please provide content-related explanations in the future." Dlthewave 06:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC) You are correct of course, and if "Tschear" takes any offence, then they have my apologies. As you know, edit summaries are limited, and I was quite hurried (stuff, IRL) which is just a reason, not an excuse. That said, I figured if they disagreed with the revert, then they could ask me about it here, per BRD, and initiate a discussion. Then I could take that opportunity to explain that I felt their edit was "unnecessary", as I said in my summary, and the list, along with the big gap of space it created on the right, made the page look... (this is where I try to think of a word other than "awful'). Further, as per WP:WHITE; "Whitespace is not always desirable. It can give the page an untidy appearance and make the article look altogether incomplete". Also, per MOS:LISTBASICS; "Do not use a list if a passage is understood easily as regular text". So given these guidelines, I felt the revert was appropriate. With all said, I'm not sure why you felt the need to take up their cause and lecture me about edit summaries, especially on my talk page, when not only is this page the proper venue, but I have a specific request posted clearly on my page about this that you deliberately ignored. Posting preachy demands is not a good way to collaborate, it can be just as counter-productive as, say... blunt edit summaries. I hope from this point we can now move forward and continue working on improving the project. Have a good day - WOLFchild 07:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 redirect

AR-15 is a trademark of COLT'S MANUFACTURING IP HOLDING COMPANY LLC.

To avoid trademark dilution, AR-15 should redirect to the Colt AR-15 article rather than this article.

Typing in "AR-15" and getting "AR-15 style rifle" is kind of like asking for a Coke, and getting a Pepsi. They're not the same thing. Cinteotl (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this at Redirects for Discussion here. It seems that the consensus was to redirect "AR-15" to this article. I'm not sure exactly why, but you can probably find out there. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue that came up was in relation to shootings and people trying to find info on the rifle in general vs the Colt version. Which led to trying to dump all the unrelated info in the Colt article. There is more in the various discussions but that is the gist of it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

While I think the decision was genericide, I respect the consensus. Thanks. Cinteotl (talk) 08:02, 8 March 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
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press