Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 8 September 2013

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

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

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

Archives

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Another user removed part of a sentence in the Expiration and effect on crime section of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article. The user wrote, "The 'note' was part of a summary not prepared by the research team, which makes no comparable study within the body of the study."

However, the summary and it's note were added by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention itself and, as an official U.S. government agency and the publisher of First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, the CDC's summary is germane.

Furthermore, the penultimate paragraph in the Methods section of the report (PDF version referenced above and online version) refers to the following footnote:

At the June 2002 meeting of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, new terminology was adopted to reflect the findings of the Task Force. Instead of being referred to as "strongly recommended" and "recommended," such interventions are now referred to as "recommended (strong evidence of effectiveness)" and "recommended (sufficient evidence of effectiveness)," respectively. Similarly, the finding previously referred to as "insufficient evidence" is now more fully stated: "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness." These changes were made to improve the clarity and the intent of the findings.

And in fact, those terms do appear in the body of the report, as the footnote indicate. Lightbreather (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This entire addition is original research from primary sources and as such should not be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What Capitalismojo said. GregJackP Boomer! 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, could you please specify what you mean by "this entire addition"? Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is that wikipedia has three core policies. One is "No Original Research". WP:NOR This policy directs editor to avoid primary sources. A report by a federal task force directed by (and published by) the CDC is a primary source document. This material could remain if a ref from a reliable secondary source were available, as it stands policy would constrain this material's use. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. "Original research" on Misplaced Pages means the WP editor's own research or analysis, it doesn't mean a primary source. WP:NOR says, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." WP:WPNOTRS says, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Thus it's generally acceptable to include primary sources, as long as the WP editor does not draw their own conclusions from it. Notes added by the publisher of a study are part of a published work, and therefore they are part of the primary source — they're not original research. — Mudwater 10:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the wording at WP:WPNOTRS that primary sources are not "generally acceptable" - that's precisely what they mean when they qualify with "difficult to use appropriately", "use with caution", and '"secondary sources are preferred". They may be acceptable in limited circumstances, but generally they are not. They are generally to be avoided, based on a strict reading. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't normally believe in topic bans, but in someone's case I'm willing to make an exception.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

While the CDC may havee been in effect the publisher of the study, the authors were in fact experts specifically chosen to represent points of view from many sources including the National Institute of Health, the U.S. Justice Department and Columbia University. The CDC's role then was NOT as the author of the report but rather in the nature of that of a publisher. The fact that the publisher of a work happens to disagree with or wishes to diminish the significance of the findings of an independent commission's work is interesting but it is nothing more than commentary about the findings made. Just as we do not include the viewpoint of Random House with regard to the contents of a book it publishes, so we should not include what amounts to editorializing by the publisher. The comment should remain omitted.QuintBy (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a statement from the body of the Task Force report, since there is not agreement about the notes that were published with the reports. Lightbreather (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI There are issues with CDC gun research. Here is a Forbes piece in February year about CDC gun research. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The specific citation at the center of this discussion has been taken care of, but the source URL at the center of this discussion links to an HTML page. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of that page that says:

"All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables."

Therefore, I am replacing the links (more than one) in the article to the recommended PDF file.

FWIW, when you go read that PDF a box on the bottom of page two says:

"Points of view expressed in these reports are those of the preparers and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Justice, or the U.S. Department of Justice."

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sentence fragment was removed with consensus originally. User:Lightbreather since replaced the term unilaterally and started discussion thereafter. Again a consensus has been reached to remove the sentence fragment (2nd time now) I have done so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell, you say “Sentence fragment was removed with consensus originally,” but it was removed by user QuintBy, who summarized the deletion by saying: “The ‘note’ was part of a summary not prepared by the research team, which makes no comparable study within the body of the study.” After that, I cited from “within the body of the study,” as the discussion above indicates. In fact, it is the same source used in the first part of the sentence, and it improves the article by editing for WP:NPOV. Therefore, I am restoring the quote. Also, please see your talk page. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an edit war with you. I won't revert your edit. But you are ignoring the consensus of everyone who has commented above. You can't do that. Somebody will eventually read this and remove the quote (AGAIN) anyway. This is a collaborative process, we follow consensus. I strongly implore you to revert your own edit before somebody finally accuses you of acting in bad faith. I am not ready to cross that line yet, as I am hoping against hope that you are simply new to editing as you claim. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the comments to ignore, and at any rate, once I cited the body of the report rather than the summary, there was no further discussion and the contested quote was allowed to stand. Also, would you please remove your "edit war" remark and your comments about my intentions? I am here in good faith to try to improve this article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike, it appears that you have now deleted the quote being discussed here. It was originally contested because of its location (the summary) of the cited source. I then changed the quote/citation to the body of the report, which is the same source cited for the first part of the sentence. Please return the quote to the sentence. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for Mike to do anything. The consensus is to remove the sentence fragment. You keep replacing it. It makes no difference if you add a citation. There are many things that could be added to the article simply because it has a citation. I can find many citations to prove that the sky appears blue, but that doesn't mean that it gets to go into the article. The only editor that wants the sentence fragment is YOU, Lightbreather. This is a group process and the consensus is to leave the sentence fragment out of the article. Please respect the consensus. Several editors have attempted to reason with you, but I am beginning to think that the only solution may be a topic ban. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur. This is past the IDHT point and becoming disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My objective when I started this discussion was to restore a quote representing a significant viewpoint. When QuintBy deleted it, it had had been in the article since December 21 (over seven months) by implicit consensus. On Aug. 15, when the source was changed from the summary to the body of the cited report, the quote was restored and the other editors stopped responding to the discussion. Two days ago (Sep. 1) it was deleted it again. If a new consensus has been reached since Aug. 15, what is it based on? I see no discussion, and objection to using the summary section of the report has been addressed.

Also, would those of you accusing me of acting in bad faith and threatening me with action please stop? It’s making me feel anxious. Lightbreather (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how this one sentence fragment - which is actually a generic statement that applies to any research - represents a "significant viewpoint". The report could be about the results of research on effects of a drug on mice, and if the investigators were unable to find evidence to support the aim of the research, then they also would be as likely to point out that insufficient evidence does not mean evidence of a lack of effect; it only means there wasn't adequate evidence. This is not a "significant viewpoint", it's basic high school science conflated with meaning it does not actually have.Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

“… it's basic high school science conflated with meaning it does not actually have.” Anastrophe, I’m not presenting it as a significant viewpoint – the source (Task Force) is. The source made a point of qualifying the first part of the statement (which is included in the article) with the second part (which was in the article for months, with the summary "Added rest of CDC quote for clarity," before another editor deleted it). Misplaced Pages editors are not supposed to make assumptions about WP readers’ level of education. If the source believed the statement was significant, it’s not our place to decide otherwise. The achieving neutrality guideline makes that pretty clear. (A paragraph I wish I'd read - as a newbie WP editor - before the "cosmetic" discussion.)

I am restoring the quote again, and I hope we editors can focus on some of the other open discussions now. Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That you infer something from what I've written does not mean that I implied it, nor that I am responsible for your inferral, which is mistaken. I said nothing about your education, I was speaking specifically to the meaning of their caveat. The source does not present it as a "significant viewpoint", they present it as a caveat, and one that applies to virtually all empirical investigation. I repeat that you are conflating a basic principle of scientific inquiry with being a "viewpoint". There is no characteristic of their caveat that represent a "significant viewpoint" as described in the Undue Weight policy. Just because a source says something does not automatically make that statement a significant viewpoint, yet that appears to be what you are suggesting with the comment "If the source believed the statement was significant, it’s not our place to decide otherwise." -- actually it is our place to decide if a viewpoint is significant - if it is even a viewpoint at all. I'm afraid that you are misreading the Undue Weight policy. Sources do not determine significant viewpoints, a preponderance of sources in agreement determine whether a viewpoint is significant. Here's the relevant portion of the first sentence of representing a significant viewpoint for further clarity: in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". You are claiming that a single caveat - one which applies to any scientific inquiry - is significant. It is not. Anastrophe (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that you commented on my education. A caveat is "an explanation to prevent misinterpretation," and the source believes this caveat might be necessary for some of its readers. If what it was explaining was assumed to be understood by anyone who might read the article, it would not have been included. Misplaced Pages tells us to provide context for the reader. That our readers "have different backgrounds, education and opinions" and are here to learn.

I would also like to remind you - and others who are engaged with me on this page - that although this past month has been a great learning experience for me, I still consider myself a WP newbie when it comes to editing. I just read the please don't bite the newcomers page, and I have to say I've seen little of the kindness and patience here that article promotes. "If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well."

I've received zero welcoming greetings on my talk page. Here, I've been accused of "scrubbing," "beating a dead horse," offering a "nonsensical reading," posting "a joke of a list," "whitewashing" - of not-hearing, disrupting, even gaming! No-one has acknowledged anything I've done right. I've fixed links, removed weasel words (which were put back - twice!), corrected capitalization errors. The two or three times I let my frustration effect my comments, I apologized or struck them out. I've even thanked a few people for some of their edits/help.

Short of quitting altogether, I am participating here the way Misplaced Pages and some of you have advised. Please assume good faith and stop asking me, effectively, to not participate. Lightbreather (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted per the consensus on the talk page. Please do not restore this to the article. You have been advised by a number of different editors to leave it out, I would strongly advise that you heed this advice. GregJackP Boomer! 02:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, regarding running into a rough time, while Misplaced Pages has the flaw of sometimes being a rough place, your choice of how to start (edits generally towards one POV, on an article which is on a contentious topic) turn the "sometimes" into "certainty". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000. The very few edits I did in the past (six years ago) were on uncontentious pages. I expected there would be some here who would be nicer than others. That's the way life is. But I'd hoped there'd be a few who welcomed me. I actually made several neutral edits and fixed some links for the pro-gun side. I don't think anyone commented on those. IMO the article is currently not NPOV, and that effects its (and Misplaced Pages's) credibility. Lightbreather (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thus far you have effectively refused to identify specifically what POV issues you see, by dodging every pointed question you've been asked about what you are trying to fix, specifically. We don't care if you are pro-gun-rights or pro-gun-control, but if you won't identify the specific problem or POV you are trying to correct (see the entire WP:CONTENTFORKING and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC thread), it comes across very much as evasiveness and tendentious editing. You've ignored the point I made just above that your interpretation of Undue Weight is not supported by the very policy you claim is at issue - but simply moved on to a different policy. You've chosen to edit only one article (with but one exception that I can see) since becoming (re) active on WP in August. And that one article is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, on a polarizing, contentious issue. You made the choice to dive in on this article alone, to edit boldly, and then to confront editors with claims and edits contrary to consensus and sources. Your peers just want to improve the article, and not be lectured by a self-proclaimed newbie editor that we're all wrong on every little policy you can ferret out. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Blunt is not uncivil. Have you considered editing some other articles? Most new editors dip their toes in the water. If the water's too hot (or cold, as your interpretation may be) - try observing more for a while. Or try editing Random articles, which is a great way to begin participating and engaging with editors where the topic is less likely to be incendiary. You feel set-upon by your fellow editors. I'm sorry you feel that way, but you made the choice to dive into the deep end.Anastrophe (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lightbreather. I haven't seen any of the editors here be rude to you, to the contrary, most have been civil and taken time to explain things. That doesn't mean, however, that we won't be blunt. Like Anastrophe, I do not see what POV issue you are trying to fix, and you have not explained that here. In addition, numerous editors have asked you not to re-add material against consensus, yet you continue to do that. If you were an experienced editor, I would have already filed an ANI on this. I can second the suggestion of Anastrophe - there are less contentious areas to learn in. GregJackP Boomer! 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, less than five hours ago I gave at least eight examples of how I've been treated less than civilly, but I am moving this discussion to user talk pages, since it's no longer about the topic, but me. Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I think it is safe to say that people here have bent over backward trying to reach out to you. I was a supporter of the ban, along with you, and I have been hoping that you can be prevented from the trouble that is just on your horizon. Unfortunately there appears to be some sort of disconnect when it comes to this. If you are new to Misplaced Pages as you claim, I urge you to wet your beak on a topic that is less explosive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has ceased to be about the topic, but about how a few of you feel about my participation here. I will address you individually on your user talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not respond on my talk page. Respond here or on your own. You are the one who breached the subject. We simply responded. I have said all I have to say on the matter, there is no need to spill this drama over onto my, (or anyone's) talk pages, but feel free to carry it to your own. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sue_Rangell. I was glad to honor your request until you edited my comments on an open discussion here between myself and another editor - and then closed the discussion. I will be happy to not post on your talk page again, but please stop using WP:REVTALK for personal attacks and remarks, (like "please do this yourself in the future," "no drama please," and "please change them back"), and please stop personalizing at me on this talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not edit your comments. I replaced your original proposal and struck it out so that people can see that you made a change. This is standard proceedure on Misplaced Pages. It was not an attack, or an attempt to change anything that you posted. This is done routinely because people can become confused if you simply delete the old comment. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally hit Save page instead of Show preview. I finished editing it and posted it less than 10 seconds after I first hit save - and before anyone else had commented on it. If I changed it after a comment, I would have used struck-through text. WP:REDACT allows this, and also says: "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission." Would you please remove it? The way it's replaced and struck it makes it look like it had been there long enough for someone to read before I finished it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of wikileaks as a source in lede

The recently added info in the lede pertaining to constitutional challenges to the AWB uses wikileaks as the source. wikileaks is generally not considered a reliable source. I'd recommend finding a reliable source for the report, otherwise it should be struck from the lede. Ancillarily, info in the lede should be expanded upon within the body of the article, but there are no details about the challenges in the article. Please add specifics regarding these challenges, using reliable sources. Absent both a reliable source and further details in the body, it's not ready for inclusion in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I added another citation that supports the previous citation. There is no public access to the reports cited via Congressional Research Service, but the WikiLeaks website has an exact copy of CRS-RL32077. In addition, the Federation of American Scientists website has an exact copy (NOT A TRANSCRIPTION) of CRS-R42957, in which author Victoria S. Chu, Legislative Attorney, acknowledges, "T.J. Halstead was the initial author of RL32077, “The Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Challenges and Legislative Issues." In both cases, the URL provided gives the reader a web page to access the source, since the CRS does not. However, neither citation claims that the authors or publishers of the original reports was WikiLeaks or the FAS. If you have a better way to format the citation, I'm open to suggestions. Lightbreather (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you now have reliable source for the claim in the lede, you should remove the wikileaks citation. Do you intend to expand on these details in the article? They should be covered as they are relevant to the article. Noting them only in the lede is not desireable however. Anastrophe (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the citation we're discussing - the one removed - is at url=http://wikileaks.org/CRS-RL32077. You're first argument was that Wilkileaks is "generally not considered a reliable source." However, per the Wikileaks discussion in the article you cited, it may be. Further, External links/perennial websites says, "this page does not prescribe any recommendations of what action to take if one encounters any of these sites linked within articles. This list is only an aid to ongoing discussion surrounding the use of these sites, final consensus is yet to be determined." Finally, per WP:CITELEAD, "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." This particular citation is less about WS:SOURCE and more about WP:SOURCEACCESS. Therefore, I am restoring the citation. If someone has evidence that this particular citation is not WP:VERIFY, I have not seen it. If a better link for readers to see a duplicate of Congressional Research Service Report RL32077 is available, I haven't found it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks documents have no provenance. None. There is no mechanism to verify that a document on wikileaks is what it claims to be. We are free to believe that a document on wikileaks is genuine, but it requires an assumption of verifiability which does not exist. I believe the document in question is genuine. You do too, apparently. But that doesn't change the material facts. It's not a reliable source under any objective criteria, because there is no mechanism to verify whether it's real or not. The onus is upon the editor who wants the information included to prove verifiability; the onus is not on other editors to prove that it is not. I can't think of any good reason to use an unreliable, unverified source in the article, not to mention the lede. Find a reliable source, or remove the citation. Anastrophe (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. By definition, "leaked information" cannot be considered reliable, since it has no true "source," it is simply a rumor. Find that information somewhere reliable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to create a "Legal challenges" (or similar) section in the article to expand upon this info, but as I've stated previously, I only have so much time to work on this article, and this isn't the only item being discussed at this time. Anyone who is truly able to edit from a truly WP:NPOV is welcome to help. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

" Anyone who is truly able to edit from a truly WP:NPOV is welcome to help." This is a fairly offensive bit of rhetoric. If you were assuming good faith of your fellow editors, there'd be no need for the sentence at all. Anastrophe (talk)

I apologize. Couldn't you just have asked for an apology, instead of assuming not good faith? Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the above looks to me like wiki-lawyering. If you have a pdf of a CRS report, complete with all of it's numbering, authors, publication data etc., to try to exclude it based on where you got the pdf from is not plausible. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would a relatively uncontroversial congressional report only be available on Wikileaks? Congressional reports are part of the public record, are they not? I suppose it may have been supressed on political grounds, but I don't find that terribly plausible. I repeat: it looks genuine me too; however, wikileaks is a problematic source on a number of levels, and the general feeling seems to be that it's appropriate only for matters that reference wikileaks in and of itself. Perhaps it would be worth contacting one or more of the listed authors of the report to see if they have any insight. Anastrophe (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Most likely because it would take hours to find another place to get it.North8000 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Convenience, or lack of same, really isn't much of an argument in favor of using unreliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this from the Misplaced Pages article on the CRS: "CRS reports are widely regarded as in depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made available to members of the public by CRS, except in certain circumstances." Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This quote (partial) is from the Peer Editing Help archive:

Again, it can be used to basically source quotes, but not to source the meaning of those quotes. That is, if some document is reproduced at Wikileaks, you can only use the document to verify what the document says, but not to analyze what it means, and even that is tough, because to say that any particular document released on Wikileaks is significant or "proves" something, you'd need a secondary source (like a newspaper or magazine or something) which says that it means that. Otherwise, there's not much to do with it, since analyzing a primary source (like a government memorandum) would be original research, which is not what we do at Misplaced Pages. We wait for others to analyze primary sources and report what they find, then we aggregate and report those findingins in our own words. That's basically what Misplaced Pages does: find stuff other people have already figured out and re-report it here. If no one figured something out before Misplaced Pages did, Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the first to report it, including the importance and meaning of government memoranda leaked through Wikileaks. --Jayron32 03:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A lot seems mixed up there. First it seems to be (incorrectly) implying that documents from Wikileaks are mostly or all primary sources. And then it seems to build other things upon that incorrect premise. Also it seem to be discussing unusual types of uses rather than the most common one, which is as a source and cite for information put into Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is a mix of info in that peer forum reply, but for this discussion the main question is: Can you use a Wikileaks document (in this case, a PDF copy of a CSR report) to verify what the document says? This CSR report (RL32077, author T.J. Halstead) is later cited in another CSR report (R42957, author Vivian S. Chu) that is available online at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf‎. However, the only online link to Halstead's report is via Wikilinks.

I'll be happy to just cite the paper report itself, if someone could direct me on how to do that. (One can ask their Senator or U.S. Rep for a copy, if they're suspicious of the Wikileaks PDF file.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't cite anything that is unsourced. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe a reliable source is still a reliable source, even if it may not be easily accessed - as in the case of Congressional Research Service documents. If I am wrong, please explain. (Per Anastrophe's suggestion, I am working on a legal challenges section, though I don't know how quickly it will be done.) Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

the relevant policy is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Access_to_sources and essays Misplaced Pages:Offline_sources and Misplaced Pages:Convenience_link but that raises the issues of 'It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively plausible to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.' which certainly applies to wikileaks, and most importantly Misplaced Pages:Cite#Say_where_you_got_it. The CSR can certainly be cited even if offline, but only if you have actually read it. You have not, you have read the wikileaks copy, which is inherently not trustworthy, and considered a WP:PRIMARY source for wikipedia Misplaced Pages:ELPEREN#Wikileaks (IE, at most we could say that wikileaks says, that the csr says, etc) . Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

At least three Misplaced Pages articles discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans beyond a concise sentence or two:

1. The The Federal Assault Weapons Ban article page. (It confusingly starts with "The now defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)..." – and then, in the first section, Criteria of an assault weapon, says, "This page refers to the usage in the United States under the previous and proposed assault weapon bans.")

2. The assault weapons page, and its sections headed United States Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Proposed 2013 federal ban - and others.

3. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act page section headed Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

I am posting a notice about those request on the assault weapons and Violent Crime Control talk pages, and would like to post on on some WP style pages too, if anyone has suggestions. Assuming these are all acceptable types of WP:CONTENTFORKING, I can't make out which is what kind

Thanks.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you proposing, specifically? Or, if you don't have a proposal, what's the question? — Mudwater 01:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything particularly. I'm trying to understand the existing hierarchy, and whether or not there's ever been any effort among page editors (article or project) to agree to one. As an editor, it would save me a lot of time and grief. Misplaced Pages readers would benefit in navigation and understanding. Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think some of them are probably acceptable under WP:SUMMARY, However, I would think the bulk of detail about this particular legislation should go into one of the articles, with the the other two having hattips and brief summaries. However, as this was not the only legislation to define assault weapons, it should not be a full merge. Here is an arrangement I could see

• Assault Weapons - discussino of the weapons themselves, with a brief section pointing to the AWB article
• VCCLEA - Full details of this particular law, including details of this assault weapon ban
• Replace the existing "Federal AWB" page with a "AW legilation" page, one section of which will summarize and point to the VCCLEA article, but other sections which could cover other legilatoin. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems like a logical scheme. BTW: Are discussions on requests supposed to be real-time, like a chat? (I'm making dinner, and hubby wants me to call it a day on the computer...  :-) Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussions can be real time, or delayed by multiple days. Just depends on how active editors are. Discussions usually don't close for several days unless there is a landslide of answers in one way. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything except replacing the "Federal AWB" page. It was an actual statute that expired on its own terms, and is notable enough to merit its own article. I agree on creating a page on "AW legislation" as a fork from the other article. It should cover proposed or failed AW legislation, with a summary and a "main article" link to "Federal AWB." GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Federal AWB and the VCCLEA are the same law. The AWB was just one part of the VCCLEA, so under my proposal, it would still have an article dedicated to that law. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The content fork that should be avoided is to have one article about assault weapons and another article about laws that prohibit or restrict assault weapons. That's because assault weapons do not exist independent of the laws. That is, assault weapons are defined -- arbitrarily, some would say -- by the laws that prohibit or restrict them, and indeed they are defined differently by different laws. That's why the assault weapon article talks about the laws so much, as it should, as well as about the debate surrounding the legal issue. Meanwhile, Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act are each notable themselves and so should remain separate articles, preferably without a lot of redundant content. And then there's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, another notable assault weapon law, which should also remain separate. — Mudwater 11:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Mudwater. First, there's the Assault_weapon_(disambiguation) page itself, which explains that assault weapon is also a military term. And if you go to The Defense Technical Information Center page and search for "assault weapon" you will find hundreds of military documents that use the term. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That disambiguation page is incorrect. "Assault Weapon" has never been a military term. "Assault Rifle" is and refers to a shoulder fired weapon firing an intermediate powered cartridge (5.56NATO, 5.45X39 or 7.62 X39 and the like)and capable of select fire. There is some debate as to whether gun control proponents seized on this and coined the phrase "Assault Weapon" or if it actually came from the firearms press as a term to differentiate the semiautomatic only rifles with the real McCoy. I tend to go with the latter and blame the industry's marketing at the time. Either way, I still see confused people thinking that semiautomatic rifles are capable of full automatic fire. I find the term offensive and when I hear it outside of a legal context it is a red-flag that the user has no idea what they are talking about and is probably better versed on foot lotion, scented candles and tofu burgers than on firearms.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what Lightbreather is asking for. IMO there certainly needs to be an "Assault weapon" article. It is an immensely used, wp:notable term, and the subject of a large amount of confusion and obfuscation. And so an article not only meets wp criteria for a separate article many times over, but it is an immensely useful article. And the definitions in various legislation are core material for the article, since the term is a legal/political one, not an actual type of firearm in it's own right. (First half of edit by North8000, subsequently split by insertion of other post(s)

As I said yesterday (8/21/13), I'm trying to understand the existing hierarchy. It would help me as an editor, and it would help anyone as a reader. Has there ever been any effort among editors (article or project) to agree to one? Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A heirarchy does not necessarily exist, nor does one have to. What will be accomplished by generating one, and editors agreeing to one? What improvements to the articles are you looking to accomplish? Anastrophe (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And certainly major pieces of federal legislation need to be covered in Misplaced Pages, independent of the "assault weapon" terminology. In most cases, "assault weapon" is only in the sales name or shorthand name (not the actual title) of these legislation's, further weakening the link with the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the three articles you list are content forks. As the content fork page clearly says in the first sentence, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." Articles, not sections of articles. Only one of six sections in the VCCLEA article is about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Only one section of many sections in the "Assault Weapons" article pertains to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Both of those articles helpfully direct readers here for a fuller explanation of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, in their relevant sections. Just because inter-related topics are discussed amongst multiple articles doesn't make them content forks. There is no formal or informal "heirarchy" involved - similar topics don't necessarily or implicitly have to be subordinate to one or another. Anastrophe (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Since there's been some confusion over why I posted this, I read the guidelines in more depth. I have a specific question: Is it the consensus of the editors participating in this talk that when it comes to the term "assault weapon," that the primary topic is assault weapon as a legal or political term? In other words, is it the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? (Since that's the context in which the layperson/reader has heard it, I'd say yes.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Political term, basically misidentifying a semi-automatic rifle. A true assault weapon is capable of fully automatic fire and is a military weapon (although under the NFA, civilians who go through a detailed background check and obtain a tax stamp). A true assault weapon fires a reduced size rifle round (5.56mm v. 7.62x51mm or 7.62x39mm v. 7.62x54mm) and derives its name from the German Sturmgewehr 44 (7.92x33mm v. 7.92x57mm). It was designed as a cross between a full caliber battle rifle / light machine gun and the pistol cartridge firing submachine gun. If needed, I can pull sources, but a GBooks search would pull plenty (or JSTOR, Hein, EBSCO, etc). GregJackP Boomer! 01:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(Added later) Agree in spirit, but not in your choice of term ("assault weapon")North8000 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, is your response to my question? The question is: Regarding the term "assault weapon," is its use legally and politically the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Lightbreather (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You asked, immediately above, whether it was "a legal or political term", rather than as just now, "legally and politically". I can't speak for the user, but I believe he thought your question was whether it was one or the other, not both. Anastrophe (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to ask if the term is legal or political. The hatnote (I learned a new WP term!) of the current version of the assault weapons page says, This article is about the American legal and political term. The current Assault weapons (disambiguation) page says, "Assault weapons are military weapons or weapons systems." The presence of the Assault Weapons (disambiguation) page implies that the Assault weapons (as a legal and political term) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since I can find no history of discussion on this distinction, I am simply asking if that is the consensus of the editors involved in this talk. I reworded the question in my response to GregJackP to try to make its meaning more clear. Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I answered your initial question, which used "or", a disjunctive connector. If it is one or the other, it is a political term, not a legal term. If you are asking if it is both, it depends on the jurisdiction. In California an AR15 (semi-auto) is legally defined as an assault weapon. In Texas there is no such legal definition. GregJackP Boomer! 02:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the implication you suggest. It disambigs to both the technical term WRT firearms, and also links to the politic/legal meaning. What's the problem you see that needs fixing? Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, your question has once again changed mid-stream. This section was started with the inquiry as to whether content forking was taking place (it is not). Now your question has changed to - I think, since it's still not entirely clear what destination you wish to arrive at - about whether the term 'assault weapon' is the primary topic (of this article alone? or of all three?) Regardless, 'assault weapon is the topic of the assault weapon article, the FAWB article is about the Federal assault weapon ban, and the VCCLEA article is about the VCCLEA. There isn't a 'primary topic' overriding all three, so no - none are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Anastrophe (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I posted a specific question because there seems to be confusion about what I am trying to discuss. Is there some WP guideline that says a discussion topic has to be started with a simple yes/no question? Assuming there isn't, is there a guideline that says if questions arise during a discussion, that the discussion is moot, should be closed, and a new discussion should be started on the new questions? I am asking this seriously because I am not an expert editor, and if there are guidelines like these, please point me to them so I can familiarize myself with them. Otherwise, these repeated comments about my actions feel like biting. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Is there some WP guideline that says a discussion topic has to be started with a simple yes/no question?" No, there isn't. " Assuming there isn't, is there a guideline that says if questions arise during a discussion, that the discussion is moot, should be closed, and a new discussion started on the new questions?" I have not suggested or implied that the discussion is 'moot', 'should be closed', or that a new discussion has to be be started. Please don't put words in my mouth. It makes it hard on other editors when a vague request is proposed in a new section, but then the question/request is changed to an unrelated request. The original request was unclearly stated - I'm by no means the only editor who has had trouble deducing exactly what you are looking for, as one can see by reading the comments. But the conversation did not gradually change to a discussion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you switched to that abruptly. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONTENTFORK do not appear to me to be related guidelines, so in that regard, yes, a new section should probably have been started. I have provided responses to both of your inquiries. Are my answers satisfactory? If not, in what way are they inadequate? How can we improve this article? Anastrophe (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 seemed to understand early on what I was trying to say, though I might not have expressed it like an expert WP editor. He helpfully pointed me to WP:SUMMARY so I could learn about that, and then he suggested one solution to possibly make this (and related) articles better. As for introducing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I only did that after you told me that what I'd referred to as WP:CONTENTFORKs were not content forks - but you didn't give me a helpful link (as Gaijin42 did), so I had to either give up on my concern/confusion or go searching for the WP correct way to express myself. That said, I'm going to move the discussion about primary forks to after your not-content-forks post. Lightbreather (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"but you didn't give me a helpful link" - correct, I did not - instead, I helpfully repeated the first sentence of the content fork article, and explained why your interpretation was incorrect. Different editors have different styles, as we're all individuals. Some editors are interested in teaching, guiding, shepherding, and tutoring new users. That's fine - they're welcome to do so, I applaud them, however editors are not required to do so. I'm interested in the article, and really don't care if an editor is new or expert. A thick skin is generally advised if one is to engage with their peers on WP, just like in real life. I will speak my mind as I wish within the constraints of WP policy, and that is exactly what I've done. We have a job to do as editors: improve the article within the bounds of consensus, reliable sources, and policy. I'm interested in doing that job. Bluntness is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'm still waiting to hear what the specific improvements to this article you have in mind in these question about WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you are trying better to understand specific policies such as these, it would be much better to post your questions on their respective talk pages, don't you think? This talk page is for discussion about this article. As a new editor, unsure of policy and having already experienced what happens when you go against consensus, reliable sources, and policy, you may wish to spend more time observing the process, and weighing your future actions accordingly. Of course, you're not obligated to, and I'm only suggesting you do so if you wish to avoid unnecessary disputes. You chose, as your first article to edit boldy, one that falls within a highly polarizing category. That's fine. But if one chooses to dig into same in a collaborative enterprise, one shouldn't be surprised when their hands get dirty, and maybe suffer a few nicks and gouges. Anastrophe (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, for being new you have picked the absolutely most difficult way to start (like at the 99.9th percentile)......attempting a large amount of bold/undiscussed edits on an article which is on a contentious topic. And for the fraction of those edits that are POV related, the edits are mostly or all in one direction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization - not WP:MOS - of federal assault weapons ban

The term “federal assault weapons ban” is not consistently capitalized in sources. In government documents, it is only regularly capitalized in titles. Ditto for the major newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, (New York) Daily News, New York Post, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News (only in some headlines, depending on the individual paper’s style guide). Therefore, per MOS:CAPS and WP:SOFIXIT I will be correcting this in the Federal assault weapons ban page and related articles. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please read WP:DISRUPT and WP:GAME. Nobody is accusing you of any of these things yet. I certainly am not. But you need to understand that your edits and posts are coming dangerously close. If you are a new user to Misplaced Pages as you claim, I implore you to take things down a notch, observe how things are done, then jump in. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Sue. Since August 9, I am following Misplaced Pages guidelines about when to be WP:BOLD and when to be WP:CAREFUL. Also, just to be clear, if I’ve claimed to be a new Misplaced Pages user, I didn’t mean that. I have used it for many years, but in 2007 I registered a user name so I could add external links to some articles about Beatles album art. Another editor deleted them and - since the Beatles aren’t that important to me, and since I was a new Misplaced Pages editor – I didn’t revert them. In 2010, I edited one external link in a politician’s WP page. My first edit on a page (this page) that deals with a controversial topic wasn't until October 2012. I never received a watchlist report about the page, or I might have returned sooner. FWIW: I have pretty extensive experience as an editor - just not as a WP editor. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Article moved (renamed) without discussion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As far as I can tell, the article Federal assault weapons ban (only first letter capitalized, per WP:NC and WP:TITLEFORMAT) was created December 30, 2002. Note that when you follow that link, the title currently (as of 08/25/13) appears as Federal Assault Weapons Ban because, unless I am missing something, on October 19, 2006, that's what it was moved to (renamed).

Per WP:MOVE guidelines about what to do before moving a page: "If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section 'Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves' in Misplaced Pages:Requested moves."

I am not commenting on whether or not the user who moved/renamed the article did so in good faith. Perhaps he/she didn't know about WP:TITLEFORMAT. As I wrote two days ago, the term “federal assault weapons ban” is not consistently capitalized in sources. In government documents, it is only regularly capitalized in titles. Ditto for the major newspapers (only in some headlines, depending on the individual paper’s style guide).

Although WP:REQMOVE says, "If a desired move is a revert of an undiscussed move where discussion is needed, please feel free to move the page yourself," I am afraid to do so (considering the comments to/about me here since August 9). If this move/rename was discussed previously, would someone kindly provide the link(s) to the discussion? Otherwise, I am respectfully asking that another editor make the move and start a discussion per WP:RM/CM.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That was seven years ago. Rather than revisiting that rename, I suggest we start fresh and discuss any possible renames from the current title -- Federal Assault Weapons Ban -- in this talk page section. — Mudwater 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mudwater, that's a respectable suggestion, too. Lightbreather (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what your game is, but if you look back WP:TITLEFORMAT, in its current form, did not exist on October 19, 2006. If you think it should be renamed, start the discussion here at the bottom of the page. EricSerge (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please strike out your "game" comment? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is 'controversial' about the move? How, exactly, will the article be improved by lowercasing the title? Oh, I know, there's bunches of policies, guidelines, suggestions, etc hither and yon on wikipedia. But the name of the act is in fact rendered inconsistently by a wide variety of sources, therefore I can see no argument that can be presented that would suggest that the lowercase version is more accurate than the uppercased version. The title has become well known, and I'd say it's a proper noun at this point. Seven years says to me that this is a settled matter. I see no value in discussion of this intensely trivial matter. Perhaps the quickest resolution would be a vote? Anastrophe (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I also must add that I see this as clear evidence of WP:DISRUPT. The original move was so uncontroversial seven years ago that nobody even thought twice about discussing it. Suddenly, in 2013, this is a burning issue of accuracy? Anastrophe (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: The title being capitalized like a proper noun for almost seven years. Well, it was not capitalized for almost four years before that. But either way, Misplaced Pages says silence means nothing.

Also, since several editors have commented on my posts as posts, and on my intentions, I must share that I am feeling a bit harrassed here. I am acting in good faith. I am putting hours into trying to comment according to WP:5P. If others don't believe me, should I just stop trying to be a productive participant? Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: your rationale for making this change is unsupportable. Some use the name as a proper noun; others do not. I can cite specific, reliable sources that spell it as a proper noun, such as feinstein.senate.gov, and Kopel's study. You made a claim that the capitalization creates undue 'weight'. Undue weight suggests bias. What bias - specifically - do you see being promulgated by referring to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban as such? If you cannot specifically identify the bias you wish to correct, then making the claim is tendentious. If you refuse to inform your fellow editors of the problems you are trying to correct, which requires identifying them, (including the discussion of Content Fork and Primary Topic, wherein I asked pointedly for you to identify the problems you wish to fix, with no response) then it becomes rather clear that this is tendentious and disruptive of the collaborative process. I repeat: this is a collaborative process. If you will not collaborate, but instead insist that your changes are the only changes that are acceptable (see 'remove cosmetic' above), what else are we to assume? Anastrophe (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, I was out of town, as I indicated elsewhere on this page, from Aug. 26 through Aug. 31. I apologize again for not being faster with my replies.

You didn't give a link, but here is one for the results of a search on “federal assault weapons ban” on Feinstein.senate.gov. It is given in lowercase in every instance except where it is a title or header.

Koper only capitalizes it consistently in titles. Only some of the major newspapers capitalize it in headers (depending on their style guides), none capitalize it consistently in stories (in fact, most don’t). The links in the References section of the article are inconsistent as well.

The title of this article, as well as whether it's capitalized, or how, is important for at least three reasons.

One, which I gave before is WP:NCCAPS is critical to Misplaced Pages’s credibility.

Two is because the article’s lead says the article is about the expired federal assault weapons ban (singular) of 1994, but the Criteria section references the previous and proposed assault weapons bans – which have different criteria. If the article is about the previous and proposed bans then one proper noun cannot apply to both.

Three the preponderence of sources use mostly lowercase in running text.

I propose, again, #1. That we change the title back to “Federal assault weapons ban.” Or #2, if the article is primarily about the expired ban, name it “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which is at least used CSR-R42957 and CDC-RR5214. (Leave the lead as is and have a separate section about the currently proposed ban, and not try to mingle it in the expired ban criteria.) Or #3, if the article is equally about the expired and the proposed bans, name "Assault weapons ban" or "Federal assault weapons ban" and include both in the lead.

I propose, again, #1. If the article is equally about the expired and the proposed bans, name it "Federal assault weapons ban" or simply "Assault weapons ban" and include both in the lead. Or #2, if the article is primarily about the expired ban, name it “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which is at least used CSR-R42957 and CDC-RR5214. (Leave the lead as is and have a separate section about the currently proposed ban, and not try to mingle it in the expired ban criteria.)

WP:POV has been mentioned elsewhere, but POV doesn't seem to be the issue here. It's mostly credibility (as cited above), conciseness, and consistency. Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment, but I don't agree that this is a matter "critical" to WP's credibility - bear in mind that WP:NCCAPS is a guideline, not policy. I don't see the use of caps as an endorsement in some fashion. I just did some deeper searching (meaning, drilling deeper than the first and second pages of G results), and while there are inconsistencies to be found all over the place - 'fawb', 'fAWB', 'FAWB', 'Fawb', 'fAWb' '1994AWB', etc - in most instances the name is in lower case in body text. I'm against renaming it to 'fawb 1994', since at this time, there has only been one fawb, so that would be akin to anticipating a future awb.

This article is about the fawb. I would generally be in favor of scrubbing content about the proposed AWB's - since proposed but not enacted laws actually run into the tens of thousands every year, and are normally not particularly notable. However, the attempts have been noted in reliable sources, so that would tend to suggest perhaps some mention is in order, but restricted to its own section. Anastrophe (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am delighted to have used the WP lingo well-enough to be understood! The "federal" part of the title is of less concern to me right now than the capitalization part, so bear with me while I try to explain.

The WP:TITLE policy gives us five characteristics to consider, and, in regards to WP:TITLEFORMAT, to use lower case, except for proper names. Yes, the capitalization convention described in WP:NCCAPS is a guideline, but it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow."

To many Misplaced Pages readers, whether the article is capitalized or not is probably not critical. It might even escape conscious notice. But to a trained editor or writer, it means a lot. "Hmmm. Most reliable sources use sentence case for this term. Do Misplaced Pages editors know something that other reliable sources don't know? ... Unlikely. Then why are they presenting this term in title case? If it's unintentional, what else don't they know? If it's intentional, why?" This is where a choice to deviate from the standard can cause credibility issues. Many Misplaced Pages readers might sense this problem, even if they're not conscious of it. It's something that gets filed away from primary school English.

So for us to choose to capitalize "federal assault weapons ban" would be akin to capitalizing "assault weapon." As I said, I am agreeable to keeping "federal" in the title for now, but I really feel that restoring it to its original, lowercase format is well-supported.

I also agree with your proposal to move mention of proposed bans to their own section or sections. (As a heads-up, although I am happy to just make these changes for now, I think editors of this page should consider the possibility that someday, someone may want to discuss the article's systemic bias. I am NOT doing that at this time, but it occurs to me that assault weapons bans aren't just a U.S. issue; they're global.)

What next? Lightbreather (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's used as a proper noun, so it should be in upper case. Leave it be and move on. But this is exactly the kind of trivial issue that swamps real discussion. I am beginning to think that this is being done intentionally. One look at the size of this discussion shows how much time has been wasted on this already. This is not critical. It is trivial. We are talking about three little letters here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey, should article be moved from its current title of "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" to "Federal assault weapons ban"?

• Oppose. This change does not improve the article, the rationale for the change isn't supported by a consensus of sources. Anastrophe (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This change would return the title to its original format, which was conventional WP:TITLEFORMAT: use lowercase, except for proper nouns. Per WP:NCCAPS: "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Misplaced Pages strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." Further, the unconventional usage of the term in the title contributes to its improper usage in the body text. It is akin to changing the title of the "Assault weapon" article to "Assault Weapon." The usage adds weight to the term whether the reader is aware of it or not. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It should not have been moved in the first place per WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS. GregJackP Boomer! 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• STRONGLY Oppose per WP:POVNAME which reads "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." ...and I am about one inch away from making a formal complaint about these disruptions. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Don't mess with it now If we took up the question again, we'd need to start by learning whether that title exists as a title in the real world. (in not the official title, possibly as the short title or sales title that most bills are given) North8000 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Closure review - request to reopen discussion on article title

The discussion about the article's title was closed in the middle of the discussion. Anastrophe and I were finding some common ground.

I will state again, for the record, I am here in good faith. When I delete without discussion, I am told to discuss. When I discuss without a detailed argument, my argument is dismissed. When I take the time (sometimes hours, because I check sources, as well as WP policy and style) to compose a detailed comment, some accuse me of being disruptive. Again, short of quitting, I am doing the best I can to follow WP rules and the requests some editors here have requested.

The discussion had been open less than two weeks, and I was out of town for part of that time. I was giving Anastrophe the feedback he'd asked for. Lightbreather (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Common ground was unfortunately very tenuous, and was broken with your penultimate comment. I was very disturbed by this sentence towards the end of your comments: "As I said, I am agreeable to keeping "federal" in the title for now,". Removal of "federal" from the article or title has never been a matter of discussion at all. This unfortunately strikes off into yet new territory, which is untenable. I can't imagine any rationale under which 'federal' would be removed from the title. Since it was never discussed, the degree to which you are 'agreeable' to making a change you've just proposed with no discussion is - I'm sorry - disruptive. Either explain the rationale for dropping 'federal' from the article name, or move on. I won't be party to incrementalism - make a drawn out series of small changes that in the end completely reframe the article to a specific POV. Anastrophe (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You and I were in the middle of discussing this when the discussion was closed. That's my objection and reason for asking to have the discussion re-opened. How could the closer know how you were going to respond, or decide in your place that the discussion was closed? Unless I'm reading the revision history wrong, less than two hours passed between my response to you and someone else choosing to close the discussion, without comment from you (such as those you've expressed since). From this and other discussions it's clear you're a very active editor here, and many (perhaps most?) of your comments supported.

As for your concern, my understanding that part of the process is working toward consensus. The topic is about capitalization of the title. I proposed putting the current title back in lowercase, which is how it appears in the running text of the majority of reliable sources, or, if the use of a proper noun is important to others, to use "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994," which is used by a preponderence of sources when it is capitalized in running text.

When editors agree to something, do they all swear to never bring it up again? The main reason I brought "federal" up is because I think editors of this page ought to consider that someday, someone might challenge it - not because I'm planning to. I'd like to get on with things below/beyond the title, like developing a legal challenges section, as you asked me to do. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to re-open the discussion, then by all means we should do so. However, the discussion was closed because the consensus to keep the title as it is, was overwhelming, the idea to change the case being pushed by only a single editor, to revert a minor edit that has stood for seven years. Changing the proposal mid-stream, and introducing new caveats from thin air (ie. Removing the word "federal") serve only to further muddy the waters on an already trivial issue, one in which virtually everyone participating is in agreement. There are much more important things that can, and should, be discussed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A preponderence of reliable, verifiable sources use "federal assault weapons ban" in sentence case (except for some who use title case in titles and headers). I see three votes opposing reverting the title back to "Federal assault weapons ban," two supporting, and two neutral or unstated. I also see an open discussion stopped midstream. Where is the overwhelming consensus to oppose standard, reference-work convention and keep the title case? Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm required to do this (since its not about an editor), but since the discussion was ended here, I started a request on this topic at the No original research noticeboard. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Original Research? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. GregJackP Boomer! 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No discussion about original research has occured. This is the first time any of us has heard of this. If there was a concern about WP:OR, why wasn't it raised in the previous discussion? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See the first sentence of this section. The discussion was closed before it was completed. Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Archives

Why are we archiving things out of chronological order? And don't we have a bot that does automatic archives? Just curious. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. That's odd. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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