Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gaijin42 (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 27 September 2013 (→Verifiable sources (preferably reliable, authoritative) re: "cosmetic": ultimate source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:23, 27 September 2013 by Gaijin42 (talk | contribs) (→Verifiable sources (preferably reliable, authoritative) re: "cosmetic": ultimate source)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

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

	Law portal 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.

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)

Items in the lead should be covered to some depth elsewhere in the article. It is not appropriate to have stand-alone information in the lead. Such information should be moved elsewhere in the article. The lead should stand on its own, but the items within should all be covered at greater depth, preferably with their own sections.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:10, 15 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)

The discussion above 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.

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? You repeatedly keep re-starting this discussion, yet none of your opening statements have ever mentioned WP:OR --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)

Compliance section

In the compliance section, I noticed that in the quoted section are mentioned "AK-47s, MAC-10s, Uzis, AR-15s", but for some reason only the MAC-10s are linked. I think that as a matter of consistency they should all be linked, or none of them be linked. All four models are linked elsewhere in the article. I was about to be bold, but then I thought that perhaps there was some reason for this that I may have been unaware of. Does anyone know if there is a particular reason that only the MAC-10s are linked? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

An excellent observation, but I would propose removing the MAC-10 link rather than adding links to the others. WP says to avoid over-linking. Links should help readers understand the topic they came to the page to learn about. Understanding how specific firearms work is not necessary to understanding the assault weapons ban of 1994. Understanding the difference between automatic and semiautomatic is. A better link would be to "assault weapon," but since there is already a link to that in the lead, is it WP cool to repeat it?

FWIW, I think there are a lot of distracting links on the page - but yes, maybe some missing or misplaced important links, too.Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed. no need for the additional link. All the other links to listed firearms under the 'Criteria' section are appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! But re: the Criteria section, "appropriate" is a first person value judgement not supported in this case by WP policy and guidelines. ;-)

All those weapons may be listed in the assault weapons ban, but is reading about each one necessary to understanding the article? Consider the comments in the archived peer review on this article. In addition to being over-linked, the article is very “listy.” Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

no, it is not a first person value judgement. It is entirely appropriate, customary, normal, non-controversial, trivial, to wikilink to specific things that are mentioned in an article that readers may wish to learn more about. Wikilinks are *always* desireable. wikilink overloading is not desireable, but the specific weapons mentioned in the ban, WLing to them is just fine. I'm not going to get into another pissing match about utter trivialities, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

referencing a six year old peer-review is not helpful. This article is not the same article as it was six years ago. Start a new peer review if you must. A six year old peer review is as useful as tits on a boar. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I need to add this: you said "but is reading about each one necessary to understanding the article?". No, absolutely not. That's why we provide wikilinks so that the reader can learn more, if they choose to. We aren't forcing anyone to read anything. We're offering encyclopedic information that's related to this article, if the reader wants to read it. This is the sine qua non of an electronic encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The comment about "appropriate" was meant as collegial ribbing, hence the emoticon. (You had actually used the exact term "first person value judgement" less than a month ago in reply to me.) If emoticons are not used on WP, I apologize.

A suggestion was made about links in the Compliance section. I replied and added an opinion about general over-linking in the article. You followed with a conclusive statement that the links in the Criteria section are appropriate. To not reply would imply that I agreed. WP:OVERLINK says overlinking makes it difficult to identify links likely to significantly aid the reader's understanding. For this reason, I disagree with you - that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no overlinking in the article that meets the criteria of WP:OVERLINK. Anastrophe (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. All I'm saying is that I disagree with your interpretation. Lightbreather (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT: Legal challenges to the ban

Please make comments at bottom. Thanks.

A February 2013 report to the U.S. Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." Per the report, challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed by the courts, but challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.

The ban did not constitute an impermissible Bill of Attainder per Navegar, Inc. v. United States. The ban was not unconstitutionally vague per United States v. Starr. And the ban was not contrary to the Ninth Amendment per San Diego Gun Rights Committee v. Reno.

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress’ authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban’s prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"

Opponents also challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. However, the reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."

Vivian S. Chu, Legislative Attorney (February 14, 2013). "Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved August 14, 2013.
^ Navegar Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
United States v. Starr, 945 F. Supp. 257 (M.D. Ga. 1996) ("Accordingly, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and Defendant Starr's motion is hereby DENIED.").
San Diego Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) ("To grant plaintiffs standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Crime Control Act in the circumstances of this case would eviscerate the core standing requirements of Article III and throw all prudential caution to the wind.").
Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Accordingly, it is entirely rational for Congress, in an effort to protect public safety, to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes.").
Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Each of the individual enumerated features makes a weapon potentially more dangerous. Additionally, the features are not commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting.").

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I note with interest that the first reference uses "Assault Weapon Ban" repeatedly in body text.

I waited to respond to this comment until I was sure we (group) were on track for discussing legal challenges and not the article title. Yes, the author does use that term throughout the report: in the TOC and body text she uses "1994 Assault Weapons Ban" 11 times, and "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994" five times; in the title only (which repeats as a page header) she uses "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (full title "Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues"). Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Doh! Forgot to add, she uses "federal assault weapons ban" only once in the body text - and in lower case. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Separately, You're employing primary source material for all of your citations, which is not appropriate. This needs to be built from reliable secondary sources. Rulings are rarely found on contentious issues without plentiful secondary sources commenting on them. We aren't here to parrot what the courts say, but to cite what reliable sources said about the court's rulings. You also duplicate article quotes in the citations themselves. I see no good reason for doing so, notwithstanding that the sources are all primary, so the whole section really needs to be redone from the ground up. Anastrophe (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur. This needs to be based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Also, if you are going to use legal sources, you need to cite them correctly - I corrected those in the draft section. GregJackP Boomer! 11:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the main problem. There is a reason for the limitations on primary sources and this illustrates it. The impacts include the fundamental nature of this which is a "construction" both in the wording and the WP-ediitor selection of the primary sources themselves and and wp-editor selection selection and extraction of material from the primary sources. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the problems with sourcing for the proposed section (see WP:BOMBARD), I don't see how a section like this will improve the article. All such legislation has legal challenges. If you look at similar articles, you'll find that they generally aren't listed or covered like this. This is because the data is not significant, and does not improve the article. I don't see how these challenges are any different. If there were something significant about a particular challenge, I would say to include it, but as far as I can tell, these are nothing more than the typical WP:MILL legal challenges of the kind that one would expect of ANY piece of legislation, so it would not be appropriate to include them, and particularly not an entire section of them. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am working on comments made so far, but I have a question I can't find answer to. When citing a PDF file, for page numbers, when they're not the same, does one use the page number in the PDF file, or the page number printed on the page? If anyone knows the answer, great. Meanwhile, I'll keep looking. Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, now that I have some time, I have added the volume and reporter information to the case cites and Shepardized the cases. Navegar is not a case I would cite. It was distinguished by Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), aff'd sub nom District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), the case that struck down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional. In Parker, the Circuit Court is urged by the D.C. government to apply Navegar to the case, but declined to do so after a fairly extensive discussion of the faults of the Navegar decision. The court basically shredded the Navegar decision without directly overturning it.

The same thing applies to Starr. It is a district court decision and is neither binding authority nor precedential.

Again, there are problems with San Diego Gun Rights Comm. too. This case was decided prior to Heller and subsequent cases note that the decision in San Diego Gun Rights Comm. has been called into doubt by Heller. "he applicability of the standing analysis in Gun Rights Committee to a case involving assertion of individual constitutional guarantees is uncertain. . . ." Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 829 F. Supp. 2d 867, 871 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

Ditto on Olympic Arms - although still technically good law, the decision has many problems. For example, it states that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, which was repudiated by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) in addition to later decisions by the Sixth Circuit. See United States v. Whisnant, 391 Fed.Appx. 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Frazier, 314 Fed.Appx. 801 (6th Cir. 2008).

I would have to object to the inclusion of the material as giving undue weight to a legal position that is no longer valid, especially as it is not supported by any legal treatises or law journals. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Further information from secondary sources:

Navegar: "Courts would err by adopting the D.C. Circuit's 'credible threat' analysis in Navegar and Seegars, and they should therefore follow the Supreme Court's precedents that require plaintiffs to show that enforcement of the challenged statute is imminent, and not 'imaginary or speculative.'" Joshua Newborn, An Analysis of Credible Threat Standing and Ex Parte Young for Second Amendment Litigation, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 927, 957-58 (2009).

GregJackP Boomer! 01:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

While acknowledging the opinions tendered thus far, I still think a section on challenges would be interesting. The FAWB was notable/notorious, and the decisions in support of it were notable/notorious as well. Contemporaneous to the ban, Heller et al were not yet the law of the land; the errors of those decisions were palpable, and the fact that they would not stand today is notable. But ultimately, I don't really care all that much either way. If it's included, it needs to be properly sourced. If not, it doesn't harm the article, as long as the one-liner that was added to the lede, which prompted this discussion, remains stricken (per UNDUE). Anastrophe (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a section on challenges, I have a problem with the draft section, for the reasons stated. Otherwise, I agree in principle with what you said. If we add a challenges section, it needs to show the challenges, the court decisions at the time, and the current state of the law. That way we can keep it NPOV, and of course it would need to be properly sourced with at least secondary sources. (I don't have a problem with primary sources, so long as we have adequate secondary sources to support the primary sources) GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a question to anyone who may know. How many challenges were actually made? Were there any challenges that succeeded, even if it were only on a local level? I am afraid that I am not knowledgable enough in the legal subject matter to say. I would suggest that if the consensus is to include the section, that we explore one challenge at a time, to make sure that each is properly sourced. I am still concerned about notability and undue weight. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If primary sources are used, such would descend into a cherry-picking morass. But if an objective quality secondary source on the topic can be found, I think a short section might be good. I say "short" because the main arguments against the ban were that it is a bad idea, not that it is illegal. So a large focus on the latter would be an wp:undue strawman. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is my first draft section. I appreciate the criticism. I think GregJackP and Anastrophe make good points. Please just work with me, to help me learn and to improve the article. I have been practicing in a separate area because I am new to some of the Misplaced Pages specific citing and formatting policies and guidelines. I will be making some changes on the above draft; I will let you know when I'm done for today. Thanks for your feedback and patience. Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please generate a second draft, rather than modifying the already posted first draft; it changes the contextual meaning of the responses to the draft for readers coming later. Anastrophe (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. That was actually my original plan, but after GregJackP edited some of it, I thought that was what we were going to do. I will post a second draft, as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT2: Legal challenges to the ban

Per Anastrophe's request, I have posted a second draft rather than edit the first draft. GregJackP, I hope I captured your citation corrections.

Please comment at bottom. Thanks.

In a February 2013 Congressional Research Service report to the U.S. Congress titled Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues, Vivian S. Chu said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." Per the report, challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed by the courts, but challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.

The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder. It was not unconstitutionally vague. And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.

Opponents also challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."

The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

^ Vivian S. Chu, Legislative Attorney (February 14, 2013). "Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved August 14, 2013.
^ Navegar Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
United States v. Starr, 945 F. Supp. 257 (M.D. Ga. 1996) ("Accordingly, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and Defendant Starr's motion is hereby DENIED.").
San Diego Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) ("To grant plaintiffs standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Crime Control Act in the circumstances of this case would eviscerate the core standing requirements of Article III and throw all prudential caution to the wind.").
Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Accordingly, it is entirely rational for Congress, in an effort to protect public safety, to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes.").
Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Each of the individual enumerated features makes a weapon potentially more dangerous. Additionally, the features are not commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting.").

Lightbreather (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that placing the final draft before the current section Efforts to renew the ban might flow into that discussion nicely. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This section needs major work. According to one secondary source, "However, the District of Columbia Circuit has held this law to be vague as applied to a criminal prosecution for possession of an assault weapon." Scott Charles Allen, Notes and Comments: People's Rights Organization, Inc. v. City of Columbus: The Sixth Circuit Shoots Down Another Unconstitutional "Assault Weapons" Ban, 20 Pace L. Rev. 433 (2000). That goes directly against the draft's assertion that the law was not unconstitutionally vague. I'll work on a draft and post it here later. GregJackP Boomer! 17:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your proposal(s), but I also have two questions. Just to be clear, "this law" referred to in the first part of your comment is the City of Columbus law challenged by People's Rights Organization, right? And "the law" referred to in the second part of your comment is the federal assault weapons ban of 1994? Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, "this law" was referring to the Federal AWB statute. In both cases. GregJackP Boomer! 16:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the source, if anyone else wants to read it. I'm going to go read it again. Lightbreather (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

See pp. 441-42, where it talks about the Magaw case (dism'd as not yet ripe) and not unconstitutionally vague on its face (6th Cir.), and then about the Spinner case where the D.C. Cir. held it was unconstitutionally vague as applied. GregJackP Boomer! 18:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I found the pages that mention Magaw, and I found a source for the case/decision - which does use the term "unconstitutionally vague." However, re: U.S. v Spinner, Allan says, "the District of Columbia Circuit has held this law to be vague as applied to a criminal prosecution for possession of an assault weapon." He writes "vague," not "unconstitutionally vague," and I cannot find a source to verify which term was used in the case. Do you have a source for Spinner? Lightbreather (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Spinner is at 152 F.3d 950. It does not use the term "unconstitutionally vague" which is normally used for statutes that are unconstitutional on their face. You'll have to look at the secondary sources to find that, such as the Pace L. Rev. article. Vague as applied means that the statute violated the Constitution in the manner in that it was enforced. If you can get access to Westlaw, "unconstitutionally vague" is used in the Firearms's Law Deskbook, § 10:7. It's also used in several briefs when citing Spinner, but those are primary sources. For example, one brief describes it:

"By contrast, federal law requires the prosecution to prove that a defendant knew all the item's characteristics bringing it within the definition, including that it was manufactured after September 13, 1994. See United States v. Spinner, 152 F.3d 950, 956-57 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (government must prove defendant “knew that the recovered firearm possessed the characteristics that brought it within the scope of the statute”). By incorporating the federal definition but excluding the federal provisions that require notice and scienter, definition (ii) of “large capacity feeding device” is rendered unconstitutionally vague." Appellant's Br., Gun Owners' Action League, Inc. v. Cellucci, 2001 WL 36026090 (C.A.1)

GregJackP Boomer! 21:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Everyone -Can we avoid posting new "drafts" until it has been worked a bit more? It is not constructive to place a whole new "draft" every time a small change or two is made. The last thing anyone wants is for the talk page to be filled with 10-30 similar "drafts". This draft needs to be completely reworked. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a particular law. If someone is talking about reinstating that particular law, this would be the place for it. It's really not the place to cover efforts to create different laws. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000. Unless we misunderstand the scope of the article, I agree. There are in-depth discussions about particular cases in the Firearms case law article, the Supreme Court case section of the Second Amendment article, and other places. If we are going to consider going into lots of detail here, then is the article really about the 1994 ban, or is it about assault weapons bans in general?

Also, inexperience with citing sources in/for Misplaced Pages articles made me cite the sources given in the first draft improperly, but I believe that I corrected that in the second draft. The court cases/decisions are primary sources, but the Congressional Research Service report by Vivian S. Chu is a secondary source. I think I put down a good foundation, though I agree some balancing info is warranted. I think the arguments that this must be rewritten from scratch or from the ground up is unwarranted. Since I am the less experienced WP editor, can we turn this into a collaborative, constructive lesson instead of a you-did-that-wrong, let-me-do-it-for-you lecture? Lightbreather (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The CRS report is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. It is a government legislative research document. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The CRS report's author analyzed the primary sources (constitution, cases, etc.) and reported on them. CRS reports are widely regarded as in depth, accurate, objective, and timely. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that it wasn't in depth, accurate, objective, and timely. But it is still a primary source, just as a court opinion is a primary source, even though the opinion has analyzed other primary sources, such as the constitution, statutes, briefs by the parties, evidence, etc. You need to find a secondary source, and preferably sources. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:PSTS says primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. (In this case, court documents, and lawyers and judges.) It says secondary sources provide an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. (In this case Ms. Chu.) Of course, there is plenty of discussion about sources. Based on WP policies, please explain how the CRS report R42957 - a CRS Report (R) and not a CRS Research Memo (RM) - is a primary source. Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. The CRS is a PRIMARY source...and this "bogging down" of discussion is exactly why we shouldn't be considering a new section at this time. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The event in question was pending legislation. The report was written by a lawyer employed by Congress to provide information about a matter in front of Congress, in other words, directly involved and not one step removed. We could take it to the RSN, but from past experience they will say it is a primary source. They always do on government reports. You can use a primary source, and the CRS reports are highly accurate, you just need to get some secondary sources. Even if the CRS was, for the sake of argument, a secondary source, you need more than just one secondary source. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The pending legislation was the subject. (S150 was introduced and referred to committee on Jan. 24, 2013, and HR437 was introduced and referred to committee on Jan. 29.) The cases/decisions about AWB 1994 were the events - analyzed in the source in question and published Feb. 14.

CRS offers research and analysis to Congress, but it makes no legislative or policy recommendations. Its works are governed by requirements for confidentiality, timeliness, accuracy, objectivity, balance, and nonpartisanship. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That makes it a primary source, like both Sue and I have said. There is no requirement that a primary source makes policy recommendations, and the other factors are likewise not relevant to whether it is a primary source. GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are 10 examples of Congressional Research Service works recommended by university libraries as secondary sources:

UCLA School of Law Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library A Beginner’s Guide to Medicare/Medicaid Research Questions:Secondary Sources Last update: April 27, 2012
UC Irvine Law Library Secondary Sources for Legal Research
Georgetown Law Library Congressional Investigations Research Guide:Secondary Sources Last update: May 20, 2013
Georgia State University Law Library Mergers & Acquisitions Law Last update: April 22, 2013
Florida State University College of Law Research Center Copyright Act February 13, 2013
Boston University Pappas Law Library Health Law Research Last update: September 9, 2013
University of Connecticut University Libraries Federal Legislative History and Analysis:Secondary Sources Last update: February 29, 2012
University of Iowa College of Law Library National Security Law:Secondary Sources Last update: July, 22, 2013
Emory University School of Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library Bankruptcy Secondary Sources
Pace Law School National Environmental Policy Act Legal Research Last update: September 3, 2013

The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired 19 9 years before the CRS report in question was written. The report concentrated on AWB 1994 and cases that had challenged it (events) in 2002 or earlier. It is a secondary source for those events.

My first draft did not include the last paragraph, about the Second Amendment. I hesitated to add it because that part of the report - the last 4 of 17 pages - includes four instances of "could" and a "may" that some might interpret as OR. If you want me to remove that paragraph, I'll be happy to since I was unsure about its inclusion in the first place. I would like to move on now. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are differences in standards for academic use of secondary and primary sources and the definition of them on Misplaced Pages. If you want to use it, initiate an RfC, because right now the consensus on this talk page is that it is a primary source.

Second, you are basing an entire section on primary sources - and even if that one source is a secondary source, you need more secondary sources.

Third, in the section just below, the current consensus is to not add this section to the article. If you feel you must, go ahead, but either myself or Sue or another editor will revert it based on talkpage consensus. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

challenges section

Before we get ahead of ourselves and possibly waste time, do we even have a consensus to include a section on challenges? I personally am not convinced that this is a good idea right now. To be honest, I am not even convinced that this section is necessary or important to the article at all. Also, the proposed section, in its present form, needs to be completely reworked, and I have concerns that this new process will bog us all down in endless debate when we could and should be working on other things. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Before we jump into this with both feet, I think that this is something that we can do in smaller pieces, or do later on, if at all. The majority of similar articles on Misplaced Pages have no such section, so there is certainly no burning need, if any need at all, for this article to have one. There are many issues with this section that would need to be addressed and clearly it will be a big job if we even decide to do this at this time. I am of the opinion that this should be tabled, at least for now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Sue. GregJackP Boomer! 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This is an article about a widely debated law. A section on legal challenges is not only relevant, not to have such a section leaves the article incomplete and brings its neutrality and credibility into question. Lightbreather (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence of article "The now defunct..."

I removed the words "now defunct" from the lead sentence of the article, giving as an edit summary "misplaced emphasis; redundant (defunct) and imprecise (now) ; section tense and specific dates give info." Another editor restored "now defunct" saying, "Replaced fact removed in NPOV manner." Here is a link to the diffs.

Considering that the lead uses the past tense "was," "included," "passed," "expired" and so on, and includes the date the ban was enacted, how long it was in effect, and when it expired, is it the consensus of editors currently active on this page that "now defunct" is even necessary, let alone important enough to put it in a place of great emphasis before the first use of the article title in the lead?

Related policies/guidelines: WP:LEAD, WP:RELTIME.

Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note (especially Sue R.), this change has been agreed to through the BRD process. See these diffs from change by Anastrophe. Lightbreather (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather Please Stop

Some, but not all, of your our latest edits broke links and changed the wording of several sections in a POV way. Please stop. Among other things your changes MYC Mayor Bloomberg's quote into something the man did not say, and then broke the link. Verify Here:http://features.rr.com/article/072E6jnf98gU6?q=Barack+Obama Why did you do that? It took me forever to fix the errors that were sprinkled in with the good edits. I don't know if I got everything, someone else should double check my work. Lightbreather, please discuss changes before you make them, they are creating extra work for everybody. Regards. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell Please Stop.

Please, when posting, be specific and give diffs - not general statements like "Some, but not all."

I flagged two links as dead, and replaced a dead Washington Post link with a working Washington Post link. The rr.com link you gave above links to a headline and a snippet from a Minneapolis Star Tribune article - and its link to the full article is dead. Mayor Bloomberg's quote? Do you mean the headline in the dead link that began "NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Obama’s top priority should be..."? What exactly did I break?

As for POV, I merged and simplified these two wordy sentences:

"Shortly after the November 4, 2008 election, Change.gov, the website of the office of then President-Elect Barack Obama, listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. The stated positions included 'making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.'"

Into this one sentence (with no loss of meaning):

"After the November 2008 election, the website of President-elect Barack Obama listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration that included 'making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.'" (same source)

I also merged and simplified these two wordy sentences:

"This statement was originally published on Barack Obama's campaign website, BarackObama.com. The agenda statement later appeared on the administration's website, WhiteHouse.gov, with its wording intact."

Into this one sentence (with no loss of meaning):

"This statement was originally published on Obama's campaign website and later appeared on the White House website with its wording intact." (same sources)

Those edits made a clunky paragraph clear and concise, per WP:MOS. What do you think was POV? Please be specific. Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are easily found under the history tab. About Bloomberg: If you read the context, you will see that Bloomberg's comments were cited because in that particular speech he mentioned Diane Feinstein. Your edit reflects commentry in a completely different setting. It is unknown if he mentioned Diane Feinstein or not. You changed the citation from one of relevance to one that may not be relevant at all. He says a similar comment about Obama, but it has nothing to do with the reason for the citation. About merging sentences: Your merges lost a considerable amount of information, including links, websites, and a citation. There is no need to explain any further. I implore you again, PLEASE do not make further edits without discussing them on the talk page. Regards. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And why did you wipe the contents of this talk page? You erased several ongoing discussions. I fixed that too. Please don't do any more reverts until a consensus can be reached. You are killing me here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to delete the previous discussions. I apologize. I had to reset my computer in the middle of composing my last response. After restarting, I must've made a mistake when I finished and posted. I am reposting now.

It is courteous and expediant to give DIFFS and details when one disputes another editor's edits. About Bloomberg: Since you will not give details, I will. The sentence in question (original) reads:

"Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a federal assault weapons ban bill in the U.S. Senate following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting."

It is the beginning of a paragraph that doesn't even mention Bloomberg - except in the header/title (not quote) of the dead link. The first citation supports the first part of the sentence, that Feinstein introduced a new bill. The second citation was placed at the end of the sentence, after mentioning the Sandy Hook shooting. Again, it was not a quote; it was a reference to a Washington Post story of Dec. 16 (two days after the shooting) in which Bloomberg responds to the shooting. The title/header of the story in the dead link is a paraphrasing of Bloomberg's comments. The link I replaced it with is from the same newspaper, the same day - the same story. The sentence in question after replacing the link reads:

"Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a federal assault weapons ban bill in the U.S. Senate following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting."

About merging sentences: No info was lost, and the same two citations used in the original, wordy sentences were the same two used in the clear, concise sentences. I implore you to assume good faith, and if an edit I make doesn't seem right to you, please ask me about it before reverting it and saying something irreversible about the edit or about me in an edit summary. ~~Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)~~

^ "Lawmakers Renew Call To Restore Federal Assault Weapons Ban Following Newtown School Massacre". CBS News. 16 December 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2012.
"NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Obama's top priority should be gun control, starting with enforcing laws". The Washington Post. 16 December 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2012.
Sean Sullivan (December 16, 2012). "Bloomberg: Gun control should be Obama's 'number one agenda'". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2012.

Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize again for accidentally deleting the other discussions above this one. I would not do that on purpose. I am tired and hungry, and I'm calling it a day. Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please stop. A number of editors have tried to discuss this with you, but you don't seem to hear what any of them are saying. This is an area where there are strong feelings about gun rights / gun control. Additions need consensus to be added to the article, which does not appear to be occurring. The next step will be to open a discussion at ANI on your conduct. I don't think anyone here wants to to that. I would recommend that you check out WP:MENTOR - a lot of times having an experienced mentor can help one become more productive at Misplaced Pages. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What is "this." Please be specific. Do you want me to not edit the page, or to discuss every edit before I make it, or what? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"This" is the style of highly motivated, dedicated editing that you are doing, oft-times biased (although I suspect not consciously so). I see a great deal of similarity to how I edited when I first came to the project. I found myself in the Climate Change area, an area that is known for polarized viewpoints and WP:POV editing. You are nowhere near the point that I was, but I can still see the similarities in how you go about it.

I ended up at ArbCom, and to make a long story short, was topic banned from climate change and global warming articles, and shortly thereafter received an indef block. After about 18 months, I made a request to come back, which was approved under editing restrictions. Still later, I was able to get those restrictions lifted. The editing that I was trying to do initially didn't matter in the long run - by taking actions that ensured that I would be blocked (albeit not intentionally), I lost all ability to affect the articles in question. I still don't go to those articles, years later, even though I could.

Here, you display some of the same behavior, although much less severe. I'm not always very good at being tactful, so this may be kind of blunt, but it is not meant to insult or belittle you, it is just what I see. First, you have difficulty seeing and hearing consensus on the talk page. An example is the extended discussion on primary vs. secondary sources. Another example is the extended discussion at the top of this talk page. Once consensus is reached, you need to learn to drop the stick. It's hard, I had a problem in doing that too.

Look, I think you can be a good editor, even a very good editor. I just think you need to slow down and learn more about the process and the politics of WP first. Get a WP:MENTOR. Watchlist ANI and AN to see what goes on behind the scenes. Find a quiet, non-controversial area of the project to edit in, where you can build your skills while avoiding conflict. That doesn't mean you should leave this area alone, just that you should go slow here. I think that it may be a good idea to discuss proposed edits on the talk page first. It's not required, but I think it would be helpful.

Again, I'm basing a lot of this on my experiences. I was banned and blocked, but successfully came back, with a couple of featured articles, a Four Award and other bling since my return. I'm one of only five editors to earn a Valiant Return Triple Crown. I did it by finding a quiet spot of the project and writing quality articles. I hope that you can do the same. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

GregJack, what an immense evolution you have gone through! Starting from where you described to where you ended up from an editing standpoint. Also to giving such carefully thought out and expert, with the extra perspective of "been there", and the willingness to talk about it objectively and directly. Lightbreather, I was going to try to answer your question, and what GregJack just said envelopes what I was going to say, it is excellent advice. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

First, GregJackP I appreciate your taking time to share your story, and I appreciate your concern. Thank you. I also respect that you're an experienced Misplaced Pages editor with deserved recognition. I am seeking a mentor. I have volunteered on the peer review general copyediting page, I've joined the law project, and I'm watching other pages. I don't think I'm more motivated, dedicated, or biased in my editing than any other editor here. What I am is pretty new to WP editing. I made a few newbie mistakes in early August, and I've been under a spotlight ever since.

Second, there are many things I do poorly, but I am a good writer and editor. In my work as a computer programmer/analyst I wrote reports for journeymen and senior executives. After many years I went back to school and received a degree in journalism. I served as president of a nonprofit. Both jobs required me to be professional in every communication. Writing and editing are my strengths.

So, to reiterate, I am looking for other areas to improve my WP-specific editing skills, but I don't plan to leave this article. I am trying to help NPOV it per WP:5P. I would like some positive feedback, not just negative. When there is a question about an edit I've made, I'd like specifics and to be treated civilly.

Third, I've read the WP policy on consensus. Its says: "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity ... nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms." My observation has been that on this article, consensus is often (at least since early August) the result of a vote - even a close vote that is closed quickly mid-discussion, or a vote with only three participants. When there isn't a vote, there is little to no effort to incorporate legitimate concerns. Instead, there are accusations of tendentious editing, when it might be argued that there are some authority or ownership issues here, with the goal to allow no changes at all unless they support the article's biases as-is.

So, what do I have permission to do on the page? May I even bring up my concerns? May I edit spelling and grammar errors? May I standardize the format of the source citations? Give me a task! Lightbreather (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I don't know if you are meaning to do it, but when someone implies caricature / strawman and somewhat disparaging versions of the feedback just given them (e.g. "permission" and "May I edit spelling and grammar errors?") it makes the person sound like they are sparring rather than sincerely seeking a route forward. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I think that reformatting the citations would be a great place to start. Are you familiar with the citation templates? I don't really have time to really go into it now, but will be happy to discuss it at more length later today. GregJackP Boomer! 20:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have used a few and studied some others, but I notice that there is a lot of inconsistency in how they're used in this article. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Most articles use the "Citation1" style templates, which is a cross between The Chicago Manual of Style and the APA Style. You can find a list of the templates at WP:CS1. Please note that there is no one "house style" and editors are free to use Chicago, APA, MLA Style, Bluebook, etc. Generally we go with whatever the first editor used, unless there is a compelling reason for changing. I do a lot of editing of legal articles, so I tend to favor the Bluebook style, but will use whatever is appropriate. It would really help if you could clean up the citations here, and I don't think that anyone will complain. Let me know if you are interested or have any questions. GregJackP Boomer! 00:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GregJackP. I will use the templates you've suggested, referring to my copy of Chicago as I go. Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"I am trying to help NPOV it per WP:5P." and "with the goal to allow no changes at all unless they support the article's biases as-is." Claiming that the article is biased, while steadfastly evading actually identifying what biases you believe are at play, forces your peers to guess at what those biases might be - which leaves us with no foundation upon which to collaborate. Thus far, when asked for specifics, your account dives immediately into discussion of policy - chapter and verse - with zero elucidation of the actual 'what' and 'why'. That is not collaboration, it is wikilawyering. The behavior of your account - taken as a whole since it resumed activity in early August - suggests advocacy. Your narrative above is interesting but meaningless, sorry. We have no way of verifying it, and fundamentally it is not appropriate anyway. Who an editor is outside of WP is properly left out of the discussion (see my user page if you need further elucidation). We are judged as editors by the quality of our edits, and our behavior in discussion with our peers, period, full stop. Thus far, your behavior has not been exemplary. You tend to cover your ears, and protest that we aren't assuming good faith, while being evasive about the specifics of what you are trying to fix. That's fine - but the respect of your peers will be earned, like it or not - the real world is at play here even in this virtual medium. You made very serious mistakes early on; your peers, or at least, this peer, is exceedingly wary, and it will take some real history of demonstrated good faith editing and collaboration to allay the enhanced scrutiny, at least from this editor.

"I don't plan to leave this article" - followed by "Instead, there are accusations of tendentious editing, when it might be argued that there are some authority or ownership issues here" leaves me unmoved. Engage with us as peers, rather than roadblocks to an agenda, and perhaps eventually the current wariness might dissipate. Editing more than one or two articles in a very narrow and polarizing realm, out of the four million articles here, might help too. The choice, of course, is yours. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing citations with Citation Style 1 and The Chicago Manual of Style

With the blessing and guidance of respected colleague GregJackP, I'm working on article citations using WP:CS1 and the CMOS. I will place notes here as I edit citations or when I have questions. Please, if I make a mistake, or if you have questions, comment here so I can fix it or answer your questions. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in press release style and gave it a unique refname so it could be easily cited elsewhere in the article. (It had the generic refname "ref1," which was called nowhere else in the article.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in press release style and gave it a unique refname, too. (It didn't have one.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This citation (diffs) in journal style. Added refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This citation (diffs) now in cite book style. Added refname. Corrected source page number. This sentence needs editing. It improperly includes "due to the fact that" in quoted material. Also, the reviewing body was a committee, not a panel. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Question- In THIS one, the page number, publisher, and ISBN number are different, is it an updated version or something? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

She cited to both the original print copy (2005) and to the electronic copy (2013). I wouldn't have done it, but that's only because I'm lazier. It looks to me to be a better cite to the same source. I'm actually impressed. I'm not very good at the WikiOtter stuff myself, probably because I'm always watching my back for the evil WikiKnights (and don't believe the spin on the Knights - it's all propaganda twisted to suit their evil, nefarious purposes).

Knights are tasty tho, if you can get past the hard shell... GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GJP. The old citation gave the wrong page number for the source (96 instead of 97). It also gave the ISBN for the paper copy of the book (which one must buy), but the URL to the e-book, which has a different ISBN. The page of that e-book also has a place to download the PDF version. (Both the e-book and PDF are free.) Also, you've introduced me to new WP terms; I'd much rather swim free and crack tasty morsels on a tummy-rock than wear all that heavy armor and be serious all the time. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent then! Very Helpful! I'm a Wikiwitch myself, if it hasn't shown, lol. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL, no Sue, it had not shown. LB, the other problem with the Knights armor is it makes them too heavy to get to any decent altitude where you can drop them from, so you have to pick them off one at a time on the ground. Of course most of the b*st*rds travel in packs. :( GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. (It had a broken URL, so I fixed that. Same website.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Heads up. Removing citation added back to wrong place on Sept. 17 revert. ~~See~~Compare last sentence of original paragraph that begins "Shortly after..." ~~here,~~ with same paragraph and sentence after revert ~~here~~.... And then after removing the duplicate: the same citations - in number and placement - as the original. (I swear by my tummy-rock this is true, not a trick.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) and this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave them each a unique refname, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname, too. Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally, for today, I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname. (I did make a mistake on this one, which I caught myself and corrected, but that means I'm tired so I'm calling it a day... after I go back and triple-check each one again one-by-one.)

There are some that are more complex that I'll probably ask questions about, but I want to study other WP articles and my CMOS first. Lightbreather (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in fixing/updating these citations. Anastrophe (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is my pleasure. Lightbreather (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put Lott citations (three) in book style. The diffs are here, here, and here.

FWIW: Even though the first three sentences refer to different editions of the same book, the old citations both pointed to the same source - which isn't even the book, but an interview that accompanied the book's release. I found the separate editions of the book on Google Books and cited those - but they're not eBooks and whomever cited them didn't give page numbers, so it's hard to verify what the article says about them. Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (Oops. Sorry. Forgot to sign.)

This paragraph, IMO, needs editing and references to the first book maybe don't even belong in this article, as it's primarily about right-to-carry laws. Also, having Wikilinks in the paragraph to Lott's books in addition to the source citations (which also, of course, link to the books), is redundant and distracting. Again, just an FWIW. Lightbreather (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in journal style. The same citation was duplicated in the next sentence, so I invoked it by refname. The only difference was the first did not use accessdate, but the second one did. From what I've read on the parameter, we're probably using it more than necessary - but if y'all want me to put it back, I will. (Though if there's a way to do it without cluttering the text with all the duplicate code, I'd love to know how.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

About to call it a day, but I actually DO have a comment about that last citation. It is for "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence" by Koper & Roth, et al (published 2004 by Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania). The citation gave original publication year as 1997, but the 1997 document was "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" by Roth & Koper et al. (published by The Urban Institute, Wahsington, D.C.) Different titles with different principals published seven years apart by different institutions. They're separate articles, aren't they? Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are two separate articles. On the other matters above, you've done a great job! On the area you note as changes, if you could just let us know what you think the change should be, then I'm sure that there would be no problem with it. Also, the diffs, while nice, are probably not necessary - just letting us know the citation you fixed allows us to check it, and I have not seen any that were messed up. Like I said, great job. On another issue, I am about to move an article from a user subpage to article space, and if you are interested in proof-reading, checking grammar, etc., I would love to have you double-check my work. The citation style is Bluebook, which I know you may not be familiar with, so I wouldn't impose on you for checking those. Just let me know if you are interested. GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GJP. You will see a number of minor edits related to the notices above about the individual edits. I'm actually going to include links to the diffs rather than the citations because as citations are added, deleted, and merged, their numbers change, but the diffs are always good. This will help future editors who might want to check the changes, too. Also, I have looking at your article on my near-future to-do list. FYI. Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sentence that needs editing

OK, GregJackP the first area that showed up as needing editing while I was standardizing the source citations is the second sentence of the first paragraph in the Expiration section, which reads (pre-edit):

"A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban 'did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence' and noted 'due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small....'"

I will be back when edits are finished to explain. Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

One clunky sentence now two clearer sentences:

"A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban 'did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.' The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small."

In first sentence, I replaced: "research of firearms" with "firearms research"; "panel" with "committee" (ref page R1 of source); and "academic studies" with "an academic study." I also added missing "outcomes" to end of quoted material. In the new second sentence, I removed the misquoted "due to the fact that," and paraphrased the awkwardly tied together fragments from two different sentences (ref page 97 of source). Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks good to me, reads a whole lot better. GregJackP Boomer! 01:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GregJackP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to swap Criteria and Provisions sections

I would like to propose swapping the Criteria and Provisions sections of the article. The Provisions section should be expanded to give a basic description of the ban and introduce confusing terms. Then, the Criteria section can focus on details of the ban - as it presently does - without trying to introduce basic info at the same time - which it also tries to do (thereby making both the basic and the complex harder to understand). I think this will greatly enhance readability for the average reader.

A proposed, expanded Provisions section will follow this post. Lightbreather (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: I did not use the word flowchart in my proposed Provisions section, because that term doesn't really apply to the ban. I didn't use the word "Act" because it would be easier for the readers if we are consistent throughout the article in our use of the short term for the subject. Simply "ban" or "AWB" is easily connected in the reader's mind with the longer "assault weapons ban" or "federal assault weapons ban," and these terms are used frequently in news stories on second and subsequent references to the ban. Also, the reference to the legal challenges can be moved to later in the article if some object to its inclusion here... It just happens to be in this section in the current version. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Expanded) Provisions of the ban

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is ~~often~~ commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.

The term assault weapon is also commonly used to refer to some military weapons and weapon systems. The similar but technical term assault rifle refers to military rifles capable of selective fire - automatic (full-auto), semi-automatic, and burst fire. Automatic firearms (like machine guns) and assault rifles in automatic mode, shoot multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Such firearms are Title II weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. Neither the ban or its expiration changed the legal status of ~~fully~~ automatic firearms.

The ban restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban also defined the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device," which is often shortened to "large capacity magazine," or "high capacity magazine." These were defined by the assault weapons ban as magazines, belts, drums, feed strips, or similar devices with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It restricted the transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices except for: those made before the law's enactment; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

Depending on locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a standard capacity and high capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The exclusion of pre-ban firearms and feeding devices created higher prices in the market for such items.

Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by reviewing courts.

I think that it is a step into confusion/misleading rather than an improvement. Particularly in confusing military weapons with the types affected by the ban. Also in using "assault weapon" as if it were a type of firearm independent of this law. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the common complaints by gun enthusiasts and experts is that laymen and non-experts use these terms interchangeably, and it's true. It's one of the most contentious aspects of the ban. That should be explained up-front to the reader so that when he or she reads the rest of the article he/she can put it in context. The Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary definitions confirm that - like it or not, inexpert or not - these terms are used interchangeably.

Merriam-Webster assault weapon and assault rifle. Wiktionary assault weapon and assault rifle

--Lightbreather (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Assault rifle" has a well accepted definition. "Assault weapon" has none, leaving it open to being whatever a law-proposer wants it to be. When talking about a particular meaning under this law, it should be made clear / have context that it is such and not imply otherwise. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that assault rifle is a well-accepted technical term, and it is used correctly by experts and probably by most enthusiasts (though I'll bet there are times when even they get sloppy, depending on the context and audience). I also agree that "assault weapon" has no one, well-accepted definition. But our job as editors is to present the topic as clearly as we can from a NPOV to the average reader. That reader has probably encountered the term before, unclear of its nuances, is beginning to read about it again, and will continue to read about it for years to come. We should explain that briefly and include a Wikilink to the "assault weapon" article if they want to dig deeper. We could even move the note that's at the beginning of the Criteria section to the beginning of this section. Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What the article should make clear is that the common parlance exists, and that it is inaccurate/incorrect; catering to a broad misconception is NPOV. Since the legal definitions vs the linguistic definitions are critical to an understanding of what, exactly, was banned, we need to provide clear and accurate information about it, even if it is explained in greater detail in other articles. Thus why I would reject striking "fully" from 'automatic firearm', since semi-automatic firearms are sometimes referred to simply as 'automatic'. It is critical the reader of this article on the ban be fully informed of the accurate meanings of the words use. Anastrophe (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please leave it as it is. The article should be educational, not a vehicle to further confuse things. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(Updated) Provisions of the ban

Note: ~~There are differing criteria from state to state of what constitutes an assault weapon.~~Some cities and states have what are commonly referred to as assault weapons bans. This page refers to the ~~usage in the United States under~~ the expired federal assault weapon bans of the United States.

The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.

The term assault weapon is also commonly used to refer to some military weapons and weapon systems like Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons (SMAWs) and Urban Assault Weapons (UAWs). The similar but technical term assault rifle refers to military rifles capable of selective fire - automatic (full-auto), semi-automatic, and burst fire. Automatic firearms (like machine guns) and assault rifles in automatic mode shoot multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Such firearms are Title II weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. Neither the ban or its expiration changed the legal status of ~~automatic~~ firearms capable of full-auto fire.

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that better, North8000? I put the "Note" at the top and added qualifiers like common and technical. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The link to disambiguation isn't appropriate; disambig pages are not canonical for definitions, whether common, accurate, or inaccurate. It doesn't substitute for clear explanation. Anastrophe (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought North might like it, but I can go either way. Lightbreather (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Still has the same problem and IMHO still more confusing and biased than the current version which is very straightforward. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current wording. I see no reason to change it. If it works, don't fix it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Note: There are differing criteria of what constitutes an assault weapon, depending upon jurisdiction.". Full stop. Noting that the criteria are malleable is adequate, since there is no single overriding definition that would otherwise obtain. Since this article is about an assault weapon ban, it is patent that the criteria that will be described are pursuant to this assault weapon ban, and this article.

Simplify. Anastrophe (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"~~Depending on locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a standard capacity and high capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds.~~" This article is about the FAWB. Localities are off topic. Anastrophe (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"The term 'assault weapon' is used in military parlance to refer to weapons and weapon systems such as Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons (SMAWs) and Urban Assault Weapons (UAWs). Military weapons and weapon systems were not part of this ban." I frankly don't know of anyone who 'commonly' refers to SMAWs in conversation; implying broader use of the term isn't accurate. Anastrophe (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"~~The exclusion of pre-ban firearms and feeding devices created higher prices in the market for such items.~~". Since there's no cite, it shouldn't be included in a rewrite. Anastrophe (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

State law section is off topic here

This article is discussing the Federal law of 1994, so I removed the section discussing state laws because they plainly are off topic here. This article is for the information about the 1994 law officially named the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act". SaltyBoatr 22:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, but I wouldn't be adverse to working in a link to Gun politics in the United States somehow, so that people can get to that information from this page. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to renew the ban

The final paragraph of this section is about a new bill introduced by Senator Feinstein, with different criteria, not an attempt to renew the former ban. It should probably be struck, as it's not directly relevant to this article. si or no? Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

~~Remove it. The bill is not even law at this time.~~ WAIT, is it in fact a different bill? The last sentence reads like it was an attempt to renew the original FAWB, if that is the case, I think it should stay. (and the whole thing re-written so that it is clearer) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think the "Efforts to enact similar laws" section, including the part about the 2012 – 2013 effort by Sen. Feinstein and others, should stay in the article. Yes, those proposed laws are not the same law that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, but they are quite similar. That's all very closely related to the main subject of the article, and quite significant from a legal or political perspective. Removing that paragraph or that section would therefore make the article worse, not better. — Mudwater 17:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the article is misnamed?

Regarding North8000 recent revert of my good faith edit, with no discussion on the talk page. It seems pretty obvious that an article about a federal law should reflect the official wording in the law. The word 'ban' is charged politically, and violates neutrality policy here. The word officially used in the law is as a matter of course the more neutral term to use. Another way to deal with this bias problem, which also applies to the name of this article, it to rename the article. SaltyBoatr 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Salty, I left the vast majority of your edit in place and only reverted to re-add "ban". North8000 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The federal assault weapon ban is and was widely, commonly, and accurately referred to as a ban; that's why people call it that (yes, tautology). What exactly is POV about the word ban? Specifically? Simply stating that it is 'politically charged' is meaningless; both sides of the debate refer to it as a ban, so it is used neutrally. Anastrophe (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines and policies about article naming. When a subject is widely and prominently known by a particular name, the article should be named after its most common usage. Nobody refers to it by its formal name. The formal name should link to this article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I too oppose renaming the article, for the reasons that Anastrophe has stated: that's what the law is usually called, and calling it that definitely does not violate neutrality guidelines. For your reading convenience, here are the article naming guidelines: WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME. — Mudwater 17:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Federal assault weapons ban is acceptable IMO, as long as it's not capitalized. Since no preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources capitalize “federal assault weapons ban” in running text, to capitalize it here is neither WP:TITLE standard or WP:NCCAPS convention. In fact, not one of the article's three dozen cited sources uses the term capitalized in running text. Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically I agree with lightbreather on this, the article suffers from topic creep. The topic of the article is about the 1994 federal law, and the use of all caps seems to imply that the topic is some greater POV political issue, which it is not. SaltyBoatr 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Or, if we assume good faith, it could just be completely benign and non-POV, since it is sometimes presented capped in running text, and is normally presented capped in titles. The two policies at play here are not that widely employed or known. Anastrophe (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Anastrophe, that if the policy was not widely known, this article title might have been moved/renamed with caps in good faith – a simple newbie or even veteran mistake. But we can only guess. What we know is that the WP:TITLECASE primary principle says to use lowercase except for proper names. For Misplaced Pages to continue to present this article’s title in caps is for WP to say that the term is a proper noun despite a preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources who say otherwise. Lightbreather (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss any edits that may be objected to

To Everyone: Please, in the interest of preventing edit wars. Please discuss any edits before you make them unless you are are absolutely sure that there will be NO OBJECTION whatsoever. If your edit was reverted or if somebody complained, that means you did it wrong. Hot-button topics like this need to be a collaborative process. It is best not to make any edits that "correct POV", "make the article neutral", etc., If you find yourself making an edit on such reasoning, you should bring it to this talk page and let a discussion happen. Otherwise the inevitable revert will only serve to frustrate you. I just undid a few such edits, leaving one or two that seemed to be supported by consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that we allow the WP:BRD cycle to work on this page. This will allow discussions to naturally start up where needed (as was the case yesterday). Lightbreather (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

While I am sure Sue Rangell was acting in good faith, an unintentional effect of her large sweeping edits in a backwards direction amounted to an unintended salvo in an edit war. It would be much more constructive to work on small progressions of edits, doing some back and forth, mixed with good faith discussion on the talk page. We can work this out by collaboratively editing and talking as we go. Making giant reverts like Sue Rangell did is counter productive. Lightbreather is onto something here I think, the BRD cycle is a tried and true method of how Misplaced Pages works. SaltyBoatr 17:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am acting in good faith. Edit wars happen when editors pop into a controversial topic and begin making large numbers of tendentious undiscussed edits. Please read the top of this talk page. I am a neutral party in this, in fact I supported the ban, but "large sweeping controversial edits" (from either side) will result in large sweeping corrections. My goal is to keep the page stable and informative, using the methods that have worked so far. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but is hard to accept your good faith assurances when you once again made a massive 'revert' edit like . Especially sad is the fact that you chose to actually revert errors back into the article. You reverted errors back into the article. Wow. SaltyBoatr 20:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Salty, when you make an avalanche of undiscussed POV-altering changes on on article like this, things are going to get messy, including details with reverts of parts of the avalanche. You should slow down and discuss. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How can you construe my edit, which was conservatively structured to follow the verbatim text of the law as "POV"? How can you construe my merely correcting flat out errors as "POV"? Is that AGF? Just curious. SaltyBoatr 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are misstating what I said twice over. First, I said POV shifting, not POV. I have not spent the time to evaluate the resultant chaos with respect to the latter. Second I did not make any claim covering every piece of the avalanche, and so claiming that I said so about some putative neutral change buried within it is incorrect. The same advice applies....slow down, no avalanches, and talk about the items that you know will be controversial. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"structured to follow the verbatim text of the law" - this is a wikipedia article. It exists to describe and explain the law, not to reproduce the law. This appears to have been a summary of the law that someone wrote. A citation of the reliable secondary source that constructed that summary would be required before it could be added back in the first place. But it seems to be a wall of text inserted to push the descriptions and explanations 'below the fold', rather than encyclopedic content. Anastrophe (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Salty. Being new to WP editing, I made some mistakes in my first couple of weeks here, but I think I've learned enough now to participate in a WP-approved, BRD fashion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I think it very unfortunate to de-emphasis the formal name of the law which is the subject of this topic. It makes lots of sense and is plainly logical to give the 'first billing' to the formal name of the law which the article is about. SaltyBoatr 17:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the opening should be with the formal name, immediately thereafter noting the broad, common, widely and virtually exclusively used colloquial name of the act. On the other hand, suggesting that it is "sometimes" referred to as the federal assault weapon ban is patently unsupportable. It is virtually exclusively referred to as the federal assualt weapon ban, or just the assault weapon ban, by everyone. Without going to the page or looking it up, I challenge any reader to state the formal name of the subsection. Dare ya. Even after looking at it two dozen times in the last few days, I couldn't tell you exactly what the wording is. We use the commonly used name of the topic, that's policy, and we don't suggest that it is 'sometimes' referred to as that. It is commonly referred to as that. Easy. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please revert your change of "commonly" to "also". This is supported by the sources, patently - just review them at the bottom of the article. Thousands and thousands of reliable sources refer to it as the federal assault weapons ban. It is broadly known as that, you refer to it as that, I refer to it as that, people who have never visited wikipedia refer to it as that, Dianne Feinstein, author of the bill, refers to it as that. If you like, I can provide sources for that which is patently obvious, no problem, it just seems tendentious that you are making an issue of it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLUE may be helpful. Please restore my edit. This change is pure WP:Disruption. Anastrophe (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, while I agree that "commonly" is the right adverb to use here - and I've changed it - your request and accompanying comments seem hypercritical. Salty hasn't been here two days. Let's assume good faith. Lightbreather (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a very long history of interaction and discussion not immediately evident to a new user. The fact that my change was reverted after my very clear description of why the patently obvious need not be supressed is evidenciary to me of disruptive behavior. Disruptive editing is contrary to good faith. Anastrophe (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

This ] edit, made without any talk page discussion amounts to disruptive edit warring. SaltyBoatr 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Those who have participated in discussion here have come to a broad consensus on the matter already. A single revert of a non-neutral change by a previously uninvolved editor is not edit-warring. Calling a single reversion that's supported by lengthy previous discussion 'edit warring' is contra AGF, and amounts to wikilawyering. This is not appreciated by those who have already put the hard work into consensus building here. Please stop being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. Anastrophe (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please abide by what you were claiming to support yesterday - the BRD cycle. You were bold, and made a change. It was reverted. Discuss. Your change was unsourced, and undiscussed. Please provide your sources that suggest that it is only opponents of the law who describe them as cosmetic. Since there are none, and since the preponderance of sources show that both proponents and opponents refer to them as cosmetic, your edit appears to have been intended only to be disruptive, since you seem to now reject the BRD cycle when it suits you. Please stop being disruptive. Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, can you prove that a preponderence of proponents and opponents of AWB 1994 believed the ban's listed features were all or mostly cosmetic? Rather than add more citations to an already overlong list on the article page, which would not improve the article, let's discuss those here. I will start a new section on this topic. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The proponderance of reliable sources representing opinions from pro, anti, and neutral parties, have described the features as cosmetic, to varying degrees. I 'get' from the discussions that those who were in favor of the ban take great umbrage at the term cosmetic. But there are countless sources that don't even have a dog in this fight who describe them as cosmetic. The finer points of exactly what qualifiers prepend the term 'cosmetic'only burdens the plain english understanding with varying degrees of non-neutrality and undue weight. The features have been described as cosmetic. We can note that some disagree with the use of that term(Edit 19:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC):IF someone can find reliable sources that state that - editor's having a dislike for the term do not count). But giving more weight to the occasionally used 'largely' or 'slightly' qualifiers is not tenable. Anastrophe (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually SaltyBoatr, if you want to be technical, the insertion of the material could be considered to be disruptive, since it has been previously discussed and the consensus was the current language. No one said that it was disruptive because everyone was assuming good faith on your part, presuming that you merely failed to check the archive prior discussions before inserting the material. In any event, there is not a problem, since Anastrophe reverted for the discussion phase, we can now inform you of the established consensus. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Salty on this one. The recent discussion was about whether or not the word cosmetic belongs in the criteria section. The consensus at the time was that it does - but no consensus was reached about where it belongs within the section, or how often it is used, or even how it's qualified.

Salty wrote, “Opponents of the law have commonly used the term 'cosmetic' to describe these features.” That is true. He did not suggest that it “only” opponents of law describe them as cosmetic. Also, there is no preponderance of sources show that opponents and proponents refer to them as cosmetic. (Also, could whomever wrote the previous comment please sign it? Thanks.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Since opponents, proponents, and neutral third party sources have described the changes as 'cosmetic', the edit suggests that common use confers only on one side. The original wording is neutral, as it does not place greater emphasis on one side or the other. To play the word game, it would be just as "accurate" but misleading and POV to reword it as "A small number of proponents describe the features as 'cosmetic'". It's true, but it colors it with POV. Proponents, Opponents, and neutral third-party sources have described the features as 'largely cosmetic', 'apparently cosmetic', 'seemingly cosmetic' and 'cosmetic' full stop. Qualifying who describes it that way is POV - the exact opposite of the edit summary that accompanied that change. Anastrophe (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What I was trying to point out to a new editor in this article is that this has been discussed as far as the term cosmetic. IIRC, the same argument was made at that time, but the community did not agree. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Relative newbiew Q: What is "IIRC"? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it stands for If I recall correctly. :) Anastrophe (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

One key point in the discussion was that "cosmetic" has been used by persons and sources on both sides of the debate. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The one cited source on the pro-control side of the AWB 1994 debate is the Violence Policy Center – but it opposed the ban. It said in a Sept. 2004 press release, “Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing ‘post-ban’ assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts.”

Note first that it says “slight, cosmetic differences,” which, despite other editors’ contentions to the contrary, is not the same as “cosmetic features.” But at any rate, that VPC press release ends with this sentence: America's police and public deserve an effective assault weapons ban that truly bans all assault weapons. (Their bolding, not mine.)

A good thing for our article that came out of that discussion in early August is that editors added six sources for the term “cosmetic” - a bit of overkill – but all from eight or nine years after ~~its~~ the ban's expiration.

What wasn’t good for the article is that the discussion was ended without thorough WP:NPOV editing for the use of the word “cosmetic.” Careful reading of the history of the article and the talk page for August and September shows some evidence of WP:OOA. Let's remember what consensus is not and keep on working BRD - civilly. Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the contention that the VPC opposed the ban? They may have argued post-ban that they did not like it, but IIRC they wholeheartedly supported the ban when it was proposed and when it was signed into law. Anastrophe (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article is controversial and content is in dispute. Don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information. Failure to do this is the only thing that creates an edit war. Many hours of hard work have gone into consensus building, one cannot expect to simply add an avalanche of problematic edits without resistance. Again, please use this talk page, that is why this talk page exists. Ignoring discussion and consensus is an act of bad faith. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable sources (preferably reliable, authoritative) re: "cosmetic"

Let's get the verifiable, - preferably reliable and authoritative - sources out there and discuss. (Let's not flood the article page; that's not WP best practice.) This isn't about whether or not to include the term, but how best to include it for NPOV.

First, I'll cite the ones from the article. Give me a minute. Lightbreather (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Alex Seitz-Wald (February 6, 2013). "Don’t mourn the assault weapons ban’s impending demise". Salon.
Jacob Sullum (January 30, 2013). "What's an Assault Weapon?". Reason.
Megan McArdle (November 12, 2012). "Just Say No to Dumb Gun Laws". The Daily Beast.
Jordy Yager (January 16, 2013). "The problem with 'assault weapons'". The Hill.
Michael A. Memoli (March 19, 2013). "Assault weapons ban to be dropped from Senate gun bill". Los Angeles Times.
David Kopel (December 17, 2012). "Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown". Wall Street Journal.
"Finally, the End of a Sad Era--Clinton Gun Ban Stricken from Books!". Fairfax, Virginia: National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. September 13, 2004.
"Violence Policy Center Issues Statement on Expiration of Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (Press release). Washington, D.C.: Violence Policy Center. September 13, 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate source for many of the quotes used in those articles, a 2004 study funded by the DOJ from GMU & UPenn : http://gemini.gmu.edu/cebcp/CRIM490/Koper2004.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Vivian S. Chu, Legislative Attorney (February 14, 2013). "Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved August 14, 2013.
Navegar Inc v U.S. (D.C. Cir. 1999) ("We hold that section 110102 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is within Congress' Commerce Clause power and does not constitute an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder."), Text.,Navegar Inc v U.S. (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("... ORDERED by the Court that appellants' petition is denied."), Text.

Categories: