Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 16 August 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AR-15–style rifle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:Vital article

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

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

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

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

quotes removed by 72bikers here

I think those quotes are valuable, clear, and improve the article. I don't agree they could lead to confusion. 72bikers, care to make the case for why they should be removed from the article? Waleswatcher (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the citations associated with those quotes are redundant given the uncontroversial statement they are supporting. I don't see that the quotes add anything and might confuse readers given they are taking more to the Armalite and Colt military rifles vs the generic AR-15 style rifle. Springee (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. The quote is extremely misleading. When I read the quote I thought they were calling the AR-15 an assault rifle, which it isn't. There has been long consensus not to call the AR-15 an assault rifle. Afootpluto (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• The section specifically refers to the original select-fire ArmaLite AR-15 which, according to consensus and RS, is called an assault rifle. In my opinion, the quotes help clarify how the source supports the statement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not seeing what it adds, but also not seeing how this could cause confusion, how?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The quote makes it sound like that all AR-15s are assault rifles, which is false. This article is about the semi automatic AR-15. Also we already have a small section on the original Armalite AR-15 in the body. Afootpluto (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is an RS is saying it we cannot reject it on the grounds it is false. We do not get to say RS are wrong. Is Christopher R. Bartocci an expert? What about Sam Bocetta? If either or both are experts then we cannot reject what they say as "wrong". There may bed reasons to reject these quotes, incorrectness is not a valid one.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is easily provable that it is false then yes it is a valid reason to reject it. If you look at the definition of an assault rifle, you will see that it has to be a select fire rifle. The AR-15 we are talking about in this article isn't a select fire rifle thus, it isn't an assault rifle. Afootpluto (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Afootpluto: The article does, in fact, discuss the select-fire rifle. The quotes are from that section. –dlthewave ☎ 16:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I see the confusion now. The quotes are specific to the Armalite section, but they appear in the References section without context. Perhaps we could rephrase it as "The ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle". –dlthewave ☎ 16:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with rephrasing it to add context. Afootpluto (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that the quotes are inside of a reference aren't needed to support the statements in the article. That said, if it will help make all happy let's rewrite vs just remove. I would suggest getting rid of the first citation (#7) as it goes to the new Armalite company. If I'm not mistaken the new company isn't related to the original company. The second is a good source but the quote shouldn't be there. Embedded quotes should be something like footnotes and offer additional context to support the material in the article. That quote is just a "ra-ra, M-16 is great" sort of thing and doesn't really offer additional understanding of the relationship between the select fire military rifles and the civilian semi-auto models. Ref #8 is also a good one but as stated it would be confusing. According to US law (1994 AWB) a single gun would either be an Assault Weapon or a Machine Gun. It can't be both. Also we have "AR-15s" that didn't qualify as Assault Weapons under the 1994 law. I would be OK with keeping that material but only with additional clarity. The differences are clear in the source but short quotes can be misleading.

Before we add these quotes back into the references, I have to ask, how do they clarify the statements in the article? If the quoted information is important let's put it in the article. If not, leave it out. It doesn't support the article statements in current form. I'm going to try to find some guidance on how Misplaced Pages thinks we should use the in citation quotes. Springee (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I also think I "rephrasing it to add context" possibly. As it was it looked like the source was implying all AR-15's are assault rifles. Probably just removing base on the mislead and it offers no real additional content. -72bikers (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with dlthewave's suggestion above.Waleswatcher (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that these quotes need to be reworked for clarity and context. I have different issues with each quote, so I'll lay them out here:

Quote 1: These are two of the main reasons why the AR-15/M16-series rifles are considered the finest human-engineered assault rifles in the world.

Issue 1:"These are two of the main reasons ..." is out of context. Nowhere in the Misplaced Pages article are the two reasons named. Proposed fix: "These are two of the main reasons why he AR-15/M16 series rifles...". Alternatively, just name the two reasons as in " the AR-15/M16 series rifles ...".

Issue 2: "The AR-15/M16 series rifles..." - Well, clarifying looks simple here, just drop in "Armalite" and move on, however, while the M16 is an adaptation of the ArmaLite AR-15, it's actually produced by Colt. So you can't just plop in "he AR-15/M16 series rifles..." as this implies that the M16 is an ArmaLite production. Maybe "he AR-15/ M16 series rifles...", but how would that look?

Other than that, the quote is ostensibly fine.

Quote 2: The ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle....Ironically enough, the AR-15 fits both of these descriptions : it's a military style rifle that was illegal during the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Same quote, but with the lacuna filled in: The ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle. You might know it better as an M-16, the U.S. Military's version of the weapon. Today, we are going to take you through the history of this iconic American weapon, from its inception in 1959 to the present day. A common misconception about the AR-15 is that "AR" stands for "assault rifle," a phrase that stems from the German "Sturmgewehr" ("Storm" or "assault" rifle) used in World War II propaganda posters and later applied to military-style weapons. This shouldn't be confused with the term "Assault Weapon," a legal term for a specific class of illegal firearm during the years 1994 to 2004. Ironically enough, the AR-15 fits both of these descriptions: it's a military style rifle that was illegal during the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The "AR" in the name, however, stands for the name of the manufacturer: ArmaLite.

Issue 1: "Ironically enough, the AR-15 fits both of these descriptions " - Um... yes and no. The ArmaLite AR-15 meets the first description, the Colt AR-15 meets the second description. Neither firearm meets both descriptions. I have no idea what to do with this. On a side note, an electronics engineer is a strange source to use for quotes in a firearms article. Given the topic, there must be much better sources available for a similar, yet more accurate, quote.

Separate question: "t's a military style rifle" - meaning what? As a non-American, though I've heard the phrase a lot, I don't know what this is supposed to convey.

This is all I can think of for the moment. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

So how do these quotes actually help support the article text? Consider two example texts

There are 8 planets in the solar system (ref: itle=Example Ref| quote="When Pluto was declared not a planet the number was reduced from 9 to 8" /ref)

The planets orbit around the sun (ref: title=Example 2| quote="Saturn is a gas planet and the second largest in the solar system" /ref)

In the first case the quote helps clarify for those who were taught there are 9 planets in the solar system and is thus directly related to/supports the article text. In the second case the material is only indirectly related and in no way clarifies the article text.

This is what I found thus far regarding the use of quotes.]

Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting (particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source – see § Bundling citations and § Text–source integrity, below).

A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible.

I don't see how either support inclusion here. The article statement is, "In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15.". Neither quote actually support that claim nor do they tell us where the claim is supported in the cited texts. Since it doesn't tell us where the material is supported in the cited text #1 is out. Also, neither is a long version of a excerpted quote presented in the wiki article. Thus the quotes don't support the article and shouldn't be included. That isn't to say the information in the quotes couldn't be included in the actual article text but that, as is, they don't belong. Absent changes to the article text I support the removal. Springee (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the quotes were meant to point to explicit statements from the sources stating that the Armalite AR-15 is an assault rifle. There were a number of IPs edit-warring some months back to remove the words assault rifle from that sentence: This, this, this and this. The quote "The ArmaLite 15 is a classic assault rifle" from the Small Wars Journal article does this on its own, the rest of it is filler (confused filler at that). Options include removing the quotes as there is no burden to "prove" the statement using quotes, only verifiable citations; or creating a dedicated footnote clarifying that the ArmaLite AR-15 is an assault rifle with quotes and a bundled citation. I don't mind either option; I only mind having the quotes reinstated without clarification. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You have that backwards. As per the DS on this article the quotes should be reinstated immediately as is, then we should discuss and reach consensus on how to clarify them. I am refraining from doing that for the moment only because there is an active notice board discussion of this, and because we seem to be making progress here. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is against restoring the quotes as they were. Springee (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur. -72bikers (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You needed consensus to remove them. No consensus is needed to restore them as they were.Waleswatcher (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is not to include the quote in the article as they were. Afootpluto (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's not how it works. But rather than argue over procedure, why not find an actual consensus? Does anyone object to dlthewave's suggestion? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

WW, you have added text against consensus. Please revert yourself. Springee (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my prosition, I am for the complete removal of the quotes. But to reach a consensus, I don't mind having them edited. Afootpluto (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I had previously typed up a reply that was lost so I'll go again. I oppose WW's recent edit. It does make sense to include a statement about the AWB but that is largely covered in the production and sales section later. Now we have the included quotes. The first one should be removed for the reason previously stated. The second was moved but given the cutting of the statements from the article it's not really clear what is being described and how it is needed to support the article text. Springee (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the two editors above. I would also state there seems to be a lot of double standards and contradictions going on with quotes in this article.-72bikers (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

I wanted to start this before the edit block is lifted. My read is there is a consensus to remove the quotes as was done here ]. These removals are supported by 72bikers, Thomas.W, Afootpluto, Mr rnddude and myself. Waleswatcher supports inclusion. dlthewave and Slatersteven are neutral with a view that the material could be made to work with edits. At this point I think we have a consensus for removal. WW added a new edit before the article was closed. I don't support the changes for reasons I outlined previously. I don't think anyone else has weighed in on those changes. Springee (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed.

In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15

Supporting citation quote These are two of the main reasons why the AR-15/M16-series rifles are considered the finest human-engineered assault rifles in the world.

This comment "These are two of the main reasons" does not appear to reflect the article statement. This quote brings nothing to the article that would help the reader understand the article content, in fact it brings the opposite. The article statement is straightforward, simply stating the year created and the name designation, nothing that would need further explanation.

Also to have to add statements that is not in the source to a quote so that the readers does not misunderstand it would speak to this being a prime example of a quote in need of removal. We should remove the superfluous to make room for the essential. -72bikers (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• The material can't be "made to work" with edits, since they're quotes, and you can't edit quotes; if they're edited they're no longer quotes but editorialising/opinions, and there most definitely shouldn't be any editorialising/opinions within reference tags, visible only in the reference list, well out of context. That's not what reference tags are for. - Tom | Thomas.W 14:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Brackets are commonly used to clarify quotes when context is given elsewhere in the source. These quotes originally served the purpose of pointing out the that these sources support using the "assault rifle" terminology to describe the Armalite AR-15, at a time when editors were often calling this fact into question. At this point the issue seems to be resolved and there are plenty of old talk page discussions to back it up, so I don't see a need to include the quotes. I don't find them misleading or problematic but they also don't really help the reader. I agree with Springee that there is current consensus for removal. –dlthewave ☎ 14:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current consensus is to remove the quotes. I see the reason they were included originally, but I don't think they are necessary or particularly helpful. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been no new comments in the consensus building thread above in several days, and no comments here since mine 36 hours ago. The editing protection has been lifted, and I have effected the consensus that has developed here and above. This does not preclude further discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Shall we now now trim some of this citation overkill -72bikers (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this now does not appear to be about quotes, but removing cites. I am not sure there it cite overkill.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ that citation is thicc (sic). There are two ways to trim the cite bundle: 1) Remove the quotes within, and frankly, it might be an idea to draw a consensus against having quotes in the citations; or 2) Remove some the seven citations from the bundle. Three high quality sources is enough for this statement. To paraphrase citation overkill; if you have six references to a statement, and three of them are to highly reputable sources, drop everything but those three. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is I am not sure that any more then 3 of these are used to support any one statement. What we appear to have is a lot of sources from one section (not statement) bundled together in a way they are not in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A while back there was a big fight about the phrase, "weapon of choice" in the article. It was felt a large number of quotes was needed to show the phrase was widely used. While I think this is overkill, bundling effectively dealt with the issue of article readability. I would be happy to see things cut down to something reasonable but given the disputes related to the material last time I would generally say leave it alone. Springee (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we need to have a clear definition of what we are discussing, removing cites or cutting down quotes within them. I agree the quotes are too long, I do not really see much of a violation of overcite (which is not about the size of a cite, but the number of them).Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support removing 100% of the quotes from citations in the article, though I would be open to exceptions for translations, offline, and/or paywalled sources supporting WP:REDFLAG types of info in the body. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be all over the place on this. How about we start with trimming some of the citations first before quote trimming, this seem like the logical approach. Lets all try and come together and let the guidelines guide us to do what's best for the article. 10 citations for one statement is clear overkill (threshold starts at 6). Springee seems to be echoing what the guidelines say on how these situations come about. "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit."

Guidance

• Sources that are opinional in nature – op-eds, advocacy materials, and other primary sources – can usually simply be dropped unless necessary to verify quotations that are necessary for reader understanding of the controversy.

• If there are six citations on a point of information, and the first three are highly reputable sources (e.g., books published by university presses), and the last three citations are less reputable or less widely circulated (e.g., local newsletters), then trim out those less-reputable sources.

• while others are only interpretative, summarizing, or opinionated. If the authoritative sources are not controversial, they should generally be preferred.

• Not all such works on a topic need be cited – choose the one or ones that seem to be the best combination of eminent, balanced, and current.

• A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided.

• However, adding a reference to already verified material merely to get the reference into the article is not a good practice.-72bikers (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Naw. Fix the quotes in the citations first, it will make it easier to assess if the number of overall citations is excessive. Learn to indent. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I Oppose on the grounds that this only exists because certain users demanded we prove it was a common view. So until we have a commitment to not use a lack of sources to demand we remove those same claims I will not support reducing the sources for them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly that is not a issue now. I would also would point out your reasoning appears to duplicate Springee and "...after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit."

With your concerns easily addressed. I would count you as a support. -72bikers (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, as you have not in fact answered my question. Do you agree to not use a lack of sourcing to try and remove the claims currently sourced using the sources you wish removed? A simple yes or no will suffice. Also read wp:indent as the next time I am not sure who you are replying to I will not reply.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As I have stated your concerns are not necessary. No one is removing the statement and we are not removing all of the citations. I myself and almost all of the other editor are not trying to remove the statement, please do not be concerned with one rouge editor. So again with your concerns addressed I would count you as a support. -72bikers (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Rouge editor, eh? Is a Cabal involved? –dlthewave ☎ 19:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As others have pointed out, the statement was challenged as lacking sources, so editors added the large number of cites and quotes as a way to show that the statement is indeed supported by multiple sources. WP:WEIGHT only requires that sources supporting the viewpoint exist; we don't necessarily need to include all of them in the article. I would support trimming the list while retaining the full list and quotes within this talk page section for future reference in case it is challenged again. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Retaining in this talk page discussion as it is now I do not believe will be a issue. It would also be in the edit history as well so I do not believe there is any chance of it getting lost. -72bikers (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Also agree that if the question of inclusion comes up the previous discussions can be referenced. I would suggest 2-3 citations from the most respected sources and remove the rest. Springee (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment That sounds logical Springee. I would suggest keeping 3 of the most respected sources. I would say a toss-up of these 4, CNN, USA Today, The New York Times, ABC. I would include CBS in the toss-up but it is a subdivision on finance, CBS MoneyWatch. -72bikers (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly oppose removing any of these sources. They were put in after many, many hours of fights here on this talk page, quite possibly involving some of the editors in favor of removing them now, over whether "weapon of choice" etc were accurate. Leave them alone. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• hey were put in after many, many hours of fights here on this talk page - Not quite true. The citation overkill was added by BullRangifer at 05:56, 17 March 2018 without a discussion, and without a challenge (I scoured archives 1 and 2 for a hint of it being discussed, and came back with nada). You're mixing a dispute over some word choice, with a dispute over the whole thing. That wording dispute was resolved by changing and have come to be widely characterized in the mainstream media to and have come to be widely characterized. I have no idea how that happened, the talkpage thread just abruptly ends with no obvious consensus, as does the RSN discussion. On a separate note, it is rather amazing, and utterly ridiculous, that a single sentence can amount to nearly 5,000 bytes. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point for me! Waleswatcher (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make your point, it refutes it. I'm calling out the factual inaccuracy of your !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it really quite perfectly proves my point.

Incidentally, the last source (Brady Campaign) played a role in a number of these talk page debates, as it characterizes AR-15s as the "weapon of choice" but is not a media source. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

*shrugs* the rest of the readers will get it, don't worry. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - As I said in my first comment on this thread: hree high quality sources is enough for this statement. The only question is: which three? I'll put forth the NYT, ABC and USA Today articles as my choice for the three. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Which statement are we talking about, I see 4 which have three cites. Are we suggesting reducing this to one cite for each of those three statements?Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Look at citation #61. It's a bundle citation with nine sources enclosed within (I counted seven the first time, but I noticed two others in there as well). It takes up most of the right side of the references section, and is ungodly when hovered over in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh I see now, so when I asked what are we discussing this could have been said to start with. OK no issue with trimming this one cite, taking into account the above comments about this not being sued as a justification to remove the content.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven the citation overkill being discussed has been shown below from the start of this section 4 days ago. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So when I asked "what are we talking about" no one thought to say "this passage". It was clear I was not aware we were talking about one line (in part caused by the fact this originally was appended to the section above, thus leading me to think it was in some way related). A section about removing citation quotes (not citations) as was clear form my response, I was not sure whether or not what was being suggested was citation or quote removal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I support the three sources proposed to be left in the article, NYT, ABC and USA Today. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Certainly for removing the excess quotes in the citation but also, since this is archived here, yes let's cut it down to 3 citations. The previous NYT, ABC and USA Today suggestion is fine with me. Springee (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

With no other comments, looks like time to pull the trigger. -72bikers (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Rough count: VQuakr supported removing quotes, not necessarily removing sources. Slatersteven opposed removing citations, although perhaps changed their mind about citation 61? I opposed removing any. dlthewave supported trimming the list, but not necessarily down to three. Mr rnddude, Springee, and 72bikers support this. That does not look like a clear consensus, unless some of the equivocal users in fact support it. Anyone? Waleswatcher (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am also in favor of trimming the quotes. Afootpluto (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Smells of wikilawyering. Springee (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

acceptance is the last step. -72bikers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This maybe why we have some confusion over consensus, and why I think this was baldy handled form the off (as I said from the off). We have been asked to "vote" on two different issues, and in one of them, (the issue of quotes) no specific suggestion has been made as to what we should remove. As such

(This had been added for clarity) Let me make this clear the suggestion about quotes is not about cite 61, but rather the general question of cites in this article, I think this show exactly what the problem is, even some of the support -s might well change to opposes if we re-word the question. After all if we reduce the cites in cite 61 we could just remove the ones with excess quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reduced citations in cite 61

Support

• It is clear there are too many, and as we have assurances this will not be misused.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support reduction to 3 per above discussion. If the statement is questioned we can revisit this discussion and the original discussion. Springee (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is no reason to have that many citations. So I support trimming them. Afootpluto (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• As stated above already, support reduction to 3 per above discussion. -72bikers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Trim down to 3 citations. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Reduced citation quotes

Support

• In general yes but is this referring to the overly long citation 61 or in general. In general quotes should only be used when it isn't clear how the source supports the facts in the article or if the sources have limited access or if the article has a small quote taken from a large quote. None of those apply in the case of citation 61 but may apply other places in the article. So in the case of citation 61, remove them. In general, no since I haven't reviewed all examples. Springee (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Quotes in my opinion should only be used when it isn't clear if the source supports what is in the article. Afootpluto (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is no need to repeat a well thought out statement. Support as to Springee's comment. -72bikers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

• As no clear suggestion has been made as to what or where.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• I object to removing quotes from cites in general in this article. In specific cases I might support it, but no specific suggestion has been made here. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Are these the "specific reasons" or the "as to what or where" for removing quotes?

More generally, if we're going to have this much material discussing shooters'motivations for choosing the ar-15, we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion. We should add a paragraph describing why the ar-15 is so lethal. That is both more pertinent and more fact-based then speculations about motivation. Waleswatcher (talk)

Not again? how many times. Some claim the gun is not very lethal, others claim (or maybe they are the same) that the gun is not the most deadly. Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding. Thus it is not simply as black and white as you present it. If we list why it is chosen we have the list all the supposed reasons.Slatersteven (talk)

Fully agreed. I've removed the quotes 72bikers added. Waleswatcher (talk)

No I excluded it based upon the fact we do not discus the other side of that debate... Slatersteven (talk)

We either have material about the debate about the guns effectiveness (or lack of it) or we do not. What we do not do is put one side of an argument. Hell it even says the very thing you claim you were not trying to say, that the gun is not as dangerous as others.Slatersteven (talk)

And who are these "experts" (for example why is a criminologist an expert but not a medical professional?)) (as I also said in the lethality debate) those "experts" were responding to claims made about the gun, thus it seems odd that if to not include what they choose to respond to.Slatersteven (talk)

..Some claim the gun is not very lethal, others claim (or maybe they are the same) that the gun is not the most deadly. Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding. Thus it is not simply as black and white as you present it. If we list why it is chosen we have the list all the supposed reasons.Slatersteven (talk)

And RS saying they are experts does not make them so, being recognized as such by some form of formal recognition does. So are you saying that a newspaper would ask for a quote about guns from people they do not think are authoritative (yes that includes the Brady Campaign). Are you really saying that as long as an RS call them an expert then we can quote them as one? What about its members if they are experts then surely it must have expertise , or is it only the press that get to assign expertise? Slatersteven

lets have both sides of why these guns are being used. Lets have reference to their accuracy And lets not have this attitude that says who are and are not experts based upon what an interviewing sources calls them If someones views are given as authoritative then there is no reason to reject them just because you do not think they are an expert.Slatersteven (talk)

We have "experts" (such as medical professionals) saying these weapons are unusually dangerous, thus if we include the claim they are not we must include the claim they are. And again, why ids the Brady campaign not an expert? So what makes him not an expert? Slatersteven (talk)

I am saying (Christ how many times) that it does not matter where we discus it if we put one sides view that these guns ate not significantly more dangerous then others we must also put the other side of the debate (even if they are "only" medical experts. What about this confuses you?Slatersteven (talk)

I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts". "alleged "experts" do not get special notice here on Misplaced Pages, no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk)

To date the reasons you both have given to remove quotes from RS's by accredited experts on the article subject matter. -72bikers (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not need walls of quotes for you to make your point, especially when they are (to a degree) strawmaning. I have not said I object to the removal of quotes (just that I want to have a discussion about what is removed), so proving I have said what I have said above proves nothing about what we are discusing now in this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This has everything to do with what is being discussed here. You and WW have both removed quotes from the article for the reasons listed here. Both of yours direct statements "As no clear suggestion has been made as to what or where." "In specific cases I might support it, but no specific suggestion has been made her".

• "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.”

Amended quote that merely states the experts credentials, and they are in agreement on the copycat assessment. this quote is being proposed for inclusion into the article. So what are your views? -72bikers (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So we both removed quotes, so what? I have not said I object to the removal of any more quotes, just that I will not give a blanket agreement for removal of content. Before I agree for something to be removed I want to know what I am agreeing to being removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My views are this is not about including quotes but removing them. Can we please stay on topic?Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clearly on topic, you both are voting to not remove quotes yet you both have clearly recently removed quotes from the article. I would also point out both of your reasons are not supported by any policy. Your statement "As no clear suggestion has been made as to what or where." I am presenting the clear suggestion as to what or where you have asked. Do you support the removal of this quote content from the use in crime and mass shootings section?

• "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.”

Also please do not comment in the middle of my comments. Not sure if you made a mistake or was intended but this is not done. -72bikers (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

72bikers, please learn the following:

• How to indent and format your comments properly (the "show preview" button helps).
• Not to post walls of text on talk pages.

Once you master those two, you'll have an easier time constructively collaborating with other editors. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

• I suggested above that it might be an idea to consider the question of quotes, since they've repeatedly come up as a roadblock to editing the article. They generally aren't needed, and it's easier to enforce a policy of "no quotes" or "always quotes" than arguing the merits of each individual quote. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment We should remove the citation overkill (consensus favors), then move on to quotes. It makes no sense to debate quotes that potentially will not even be in the article. -72bikers (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment With the consensus 5 to 0 after a couple days I reduced the citations. All left now to discuss is the quotes issues. -72bikers (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Smith, Aaron (June 21, 2016). "Why the AR-15 is the mass shooter's go-to weapon". CNN. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers.
   Picchi, Aimee (June 15, 2016), "America's rifle: The marketing of assault-style weapons", CBS MoneyWatch, CBS News, retrieved February 23, 2018, America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers.
   Zhang, Sarah (June 17, 2016), "What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body", Wired, retrieved March 3, 2018, The AR-15 is America's most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino.
   Williams, Joseph P. (November 7, 2017). "How the AR-15 Became One of the Most Popular Guns in America, A brief history of the guns that have become the weapons of choice for mass shootings". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved February 15, 2018. They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly.
   Jansen, Bart; Cummings, William (November 6, 2017), "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s", USA Today, retrieved February 15, 2018, AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
   Oppel Jr., Richard A. (February 15, 2018), "In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun", The New York Times, retrieved February 15, 2018, The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers.
   Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018), Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters, retrieved March 2, 2018, AR-15-style rifles have become something of a weapon of choice for mass shooters. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
   Beckett, Lois (February 16, 2018), "Most Americans can buy an AR-15 rifle before they can buy beer", The Guardian, retrieved March 2, 2018, While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America's most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence.
   Samis, Max (April 22, 2018), "Brady Campaign Responds to Developments in Nashville Waffle House Shooting", Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, retrieved May 4, 2018, Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, 'It adds insult to the literal injuries and loss of life suffered by today's victims that even though the killer was known to be too dangerous to have guns, his father chose to rearm him including, reportedly, with the AR-15 used this morning, a weapon of war that now happens to be the weapon of choice in far too many mass killings in America.'

Quotes removed by Waleswatcher here

I think these quotes are valuable, help clarify, and improve the article. They help the reader with context to who the recognized experts are and expand on there view. Waleswatcher, care to make the case for why they should be removed from the article?

• "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder... The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”

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

These were removed on 7-15 it is now 7-25 and to date there has not been any explanation given except "I've already explained", "Fully agreed", "cannot be added to the article without consensus". When and were on this page do you give a legitimate explanation? --72bikers (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've explained in detail at least three times. You cannot keep adding the same or nearly identical material, and each time insist that everyone opposed again explain themselves. Stop beating this dead horse. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet again you have failed to engage. You need to explain your actions, here and now. You removed this 10 days ago and have repeatedly refused to give any reason for your actions.

Failure to explain your action and attempting to pacify by stating at one time you expressed dislike for something similar is not a accepted reason. Can you present a policy that support that action? Since you failed to provide your reasons, I have taken the time to provide them for you. Your welcome.

Slatersteven is correct. The statements regarding the lack of lethality of the AR-15 are a violation of NPOV (since the mainstream view is in fact the opposite, and that's backed up by many, many reliable sources, but none of that is included), and the stuff about the police is simply not relevant. User_talk:Waleswatcher 7:29 pm, 12 June 2018, Tuesday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−4) Wanting wound content included in exchange.

A shortened, cleaned up version of that could be added, but only if we also include other points of view on the lethality of AR-15s, and why shooters choose them. User_talk:Waleswatcher 10:42 pm, 21 June 2018, Thursday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4) Wanting wound content in exchange.

Date content was accepted into the article 13:42, July 3, 2018‎ No wound content. Date content change by admin Drimies after SS repeatedly altered it 21:04, July 3, 2018 Date quotes first included in article 12:03, July 6, 2018 Date quotes first removed 12:06, July 6, 2018

It makes no sense to discuss lethality there - not without a more general discussion of the lethality of this rifle compared to others. User_talk:Waleswatcher 7:07 am, 6 July 2018, Friday (19 days ago) (UTC−4) Again wants wound content in exchange.

The problem isn't so much WP:DUE, it's context and proper writing. If we tell the reader there that mass shooters don't choose the AR-15 because of its lethality, they wouldn't be sure if that means they don't choose it because it is very lethal, or because it isn't, or because mass shooters think it is even though it isn't, or what. It's just out of the blue. But to establish any of those possibilities, we need more sources and text that are out of place in a section on mass shootings. The whole thing is already unbalanced - we have an extremely concise summary of the shootings themselves, and then a relatively long sentence about shooter's motivations for choosing the AR. User_talk:Waleswatcher 9:11 am, 6 July 2018, Friday (19 days ago) (UTC−4) Again wants wound content in exchange.

I will not speculate as to why you did not want to show your reasons. These comments are in chronological order. Content in exchange appears to be the narrative. You have also based your argument on a misunderstanding on most of the content of lethality. These two quotes do not speak of any lethgality. Are you arguing it does? Or are you arguing content has to be included in exchange? Will you please state why you removed the content. I see no legitimate or relevant reason from your previous statement for removing these quotes. -72bikers (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, the first quote is poorly formatted, making it impossible to follow. What are all those "..."s doing in there? Who is even being quoted? For the second, Hazen is not an expert on mass shooters' motivations. It's also unclear what "bad rep" refers to.

More generally, if we're going to have this much material discussing shooters'motivations for choosing the ar-15, we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion. We should add a paragraph describing why the ar-15 is so lethal. That is both more pertinent and more fact-based then speculations about motivation. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

f we're going to have this much material discussing shooters'motivations for choosing the ar-15, we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion - Why? These quotes are in the references section and their only function is to provide evidence for the claim that Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect which is already in the article. You know, in the same way that the two quotes being discussed above provide evidence for the claim that the ArmaLite AR-15 is an assault rifle. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So your objections you said you already stated were that there needs to be more content you like in exchange?

Formatting is a easy fix. An ellipsis is , just to help you out there. The source clearly shows Blair and Hazon are in agreement on the copycat view. It is not clear what you refer there. There are many comments in the article of how they have come to there conclusions and it all makes sense. No Fringe Theory. The claiming you don't understand bad rap common knowledge is not a legitimate reason. What are you trying state here "we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion."? Why? Can you show a policy that supports your view? "We should add a paragraph describing why the ar-15 is so lethal." for just two quotes in the citation that is already in the article. Why? this line "That is both more pertinent and more fact-based then speculations about motivation." so you are saying this content is not credible? How is this content not "pertinent"? What would you call "more pertinent"? -72bikers (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”

Proposed new text for the quote. If there is any objections please state exactly what content objecting to and why. -72bikers (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are proposing adding this as an embedded quote in a reference? If so, oppose for editorial reasons. We do not need more quotes in the ref section for this article, and those that we have should be heavily pruned. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We have a quote that misleads readers to misunderstand article content that a editor has now added his own words to a quote. We have quotes in a citation for a advocacy group in a list of ten citations all just supporting just one statement with extended quotes.

My content addresses and bring readers a understanding of why the article weapon is being chosen in mass shootings.

• AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.

• Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.

But we now draw the line on a in citation quote that simply would provide the reader with context of who the recognized experts are and that further explains the copycat reasoning.

I agree there are too many extended in citation quotes that are superfluous. But were is the logic of keeping the irrelevant and overkill? Then denying expert credentials and explanations and reasonings of why being chosen.

Should we add the content directly to the article? Should we remove the superfluous to make room for the essential? -72bikers (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.”

Amended quote that merely states the experts credentials, and they are in agreement on the copycat assessment. -72bikers (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

VQuakr I have said this before, and wholly agree with you, and not any other user.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We are already discussing this above, is that thread now closed?Slatersteven (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice - Archiving

I've reduced archiving time to 14 days: threads that have not received a response in two weeks will be archived. I've also archived the first 4 threads on the page as either closed, dead, or no action required. The bot has also archived two other dead threads. The talk page is now shorter than 70k bytes (instead of 200k). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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