Misplaced Pages

That part needs citations but I figure that won't be hard based on getting some from the parent article. The next part, if consensus supports inclusion, is a bit harder since it could easily turn political. A number of manufactures produced Ar-15 type rifles during the period of the ban. It wasn't hard to remove a few features that were cosmetic to the non-military user in order to comply with the law. The gun rights people see this as simply complying with the law. The gun control people see this as exploiting a loophole. So how can we describe it in a neutral tone. I would prefer to keep it fact based, "manufactures produced rifles with no more than two listed features" (say which features where often removed if we can find a citation). Then I would like to, in the most neutral way possible and with balanced references, say that some saw this as using a loophole to defy the law while others said it was simply complying with the law.

I know that isn't a complete text but I thought I would see what people think of the general structure. I don't know about others, but sometimes I find it much harder to come up with my own text from scratch vs identifying what I think needs fixing in an existing block of text... Well that and arguing about what should/shouldn't be in. Springee (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the term "loophole" specifically mentioned? (Repeatedly, prominently and by neutral, expert sources?) Do any sources say that instead of a "loophole", that some gun-control groups found the law "insufficient"? (or "weak", or "soft", etc.) If so, perhaps we could say that "pro-gun groups were simply following the law while anti-gun groups felt the law didn't go far enough"... with whatever wording changes are needed, and with appropriate sourcing of course. The most neutral way to present that situation is to keep it simple; pro-gun felt law was too much, anti-gun felt it was too little... something along those lines, while avoiding buzzwords like "loopholes". - WOLFchild 04:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reference stating that the carry handle was removed due to the ban? I couldn't find any mention of carry handles in the AWB article or the text of the law. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's speculation on my part and not part of my proposed text. The article mentions that flat top receivers became common in the 1990s and I think at least one of the assault weapons laws (there were a number of state laws in addition to the federal law) mentions carry handles. However, we also have accessory sights and optics becoming more common. Springee (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this belongs in the Production and Sales section, it's an essential part of the production history. We can also add the fact that production of non-compliant rifles was temporarily ramped up just before the ban took effect.

The current sources use the word "loophole", it's neutral and well-supported. It would also be factual to say that the ban did not achieve its intended purpose. We could say something like "The law was intended to ban certain types of rifles but included a loophole that allowed manufactures to continue producing similar designs with sight modifications." Like most loopholes, the criticism is directed at the law itself and not toward the manufactures that were simply complying with the law. I would leave pro-gun/anti-gun out of it altogether since it's not just interest groups that are saying this.–dlthewave ☎ 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence about mentioning the loophole aspects since they are covered in the primary article. I think "loophole" in this case needs to be treated as a contentious label because it suggests sneaking around the law. In Wiki voice we should say "compliant" or similar. However, if we are going to mention the controversy then we should say that gun control advocates argued this was a loophole in the law (thus attributing "loophole" to a group). I think we should avoid discussing the intent of the law and saying the law did or didn't contain a loophole. That's really a topic best left to the AWB page and if you are a textualist then the law only intended what it covers, not what people felt it should have covered. I think the ramp in sales of pre-ban guns can be mentioned but we need to be careful how that is done. Remember that such a run up in production is driven by consumer demand and is 100% legal. Still, it fits well within a broader discussion of the sales of the gun. From memory the sales of AR-15s were relatively small until they were about to be banned (people many not have realized that AWB compliant guns would be available). When the ban was expected there was a rust to purchase before the law went into effect. Then we had the "compliant" period. I'm not sure what sales looked like then. I don't know if we have post ban, pre-Obama sales data. Then we have the spikes in sales associated with the fear that Obama would pass gun laws shortly after his election (with a super majority senate and house). Things calmned the spiked again after Sandy Hook. Then sales fell off with a GOP presidential election. Anyway, that's drifting off subject, rather political and all from memory... still, its material that did drive sales. Springee (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The rise and fall in sales related to legislation and elections is quite interesting and I would consider the statistics themselves to be uncontroversial facts. This would be a great way to expand the article. I think it makes sense to briefly explain the ban, the loopholes and their effect on sales/production in this article, leaving the rest to AWB. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the impact on sales is very relevant in the sales section. I like your plan overall. I'm not sure how to briefly explain the ban and if we are going to say loophole we should make it clear that the term is contested. Otherwise. I think we are in agreement. I'll see if I can find some sources. Springee (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Reported in The Washington Post about this type of gun and the ban. "Critics of bans on assault weapons, however, say they do little to save lives. The NRA correctly points out that assault weapons are used only in a tiny fraction of gun crimes. The gun rights group also notes that a federally funded study of the previous assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, concluded that “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”" -72bikers (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The federal weapons ban lists the AR-15 as one of the specific types.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point but I think it was the Colt AR-15 (since Colt owns the trademark). I think several others such as a few Bushmaster models were also listed by name. Perhaps we should say that some AR-15 type rifles, including the "Colt AR-15(TM)" were prohibited by name. It does beg the question, how much is too much for this article vs the primary article on the subject? Springee (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We should probably make at least some change to this content in the lead. Right now it says, "... although it did not affect rifles with fewer features." Without more text it's not at all clear what "features" is referring to. I would propose the lead be reduced to just say "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the production and sale of some versions of the rifle." (or similar). The details of what and why can be covered later in the text. Springee (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said I do not think this should be in the lead without anything in the body. We should have a section in the body before adding anything more to the lead. Oh and the act bans (by name) AR-15 type weapons.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. "Assault Weapons Policy Summary". San Francisco, California: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. May 21, 2012.

I agree, we need more content in the body to support the lead. While I think the lead needs help, it can wait for the body work first. I agree the law bans some AR-15 type rifles (including the Colt AR-15 (TM)) by name, but it doesn't ban them by type since the law couldn't actually do that. Instead it defined features that when combined created a prohibited rifle. Springee (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But that did not target the AR-15 as such, and thus was not used to define AR-15 derivatives as assault weapons, but rather to define a style of gun (which some AR-125 derivatives matched) as assault weapons. This is why I do not think such a claim "military style features made AR-15's illegal" or some such is undue. It is not about the AR-15 but any semi-auto with said features.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we are probably in agreement but don't realize it. The law had two ways to define what was an "assault weapon". The first was a list of guns by name. That included some AR-15 type rifles including the Colt AR-15 (tm), as well as clear AR-15 type rifles like several Bushmaster models. However, there were many AR-15 type rifles that were not listed by name because, for instance, the mfr was too small for the bill to list by name. So the law had the second, feature based definition. The feature based definition is the one that really mattered since a mfr of a banned by name model was legally free to change the name, make sure the newly named rifle didn't violate two or more feature criteria and then it was legal. You are correct that it was by name that some specific brand/models of AR-15 type rifles were made illegal but that didn't apply generically (and this article is about the generic rifle). Springee (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is we cannot claim that these "feature" restrictions were targeted at the AR-15. Either to ban them or define them, as it was not about them, nor can it be in the lead, as it is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see the point you are making. I don't agree that the feature list was meant just for other rifles and legally there were several AR-15 style rifles named which meant that the law makers acknowledged that similar rifles were made by more than one manufacture. Furthermore, much of the retrospective discussion of the law talked about how these rifles continued to be produced during the period of the ban due to new models complying with the features list. Springee (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And I am not saying that, I am saying we cannot imply it was targeted at the AR-15. In the body we can say "it was represented as targeting the AR-15" if we have RS saying that). But the lead should either be a summery of important parts of the article, or material that is important to the topic, and whilst the assault weapon ban may well be, specific text withing the ban (unless explicitly naming the AR-15) is not about the AR-15, but about assault weapons in general.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In the lead I think we should skip mentioning it. In the body I think we can say some make-models were mentioned by name but the feature list would apply to all AR-15 type rifles regardless of manufacture. Remember, even though we call these all AR-15s, that is a trademark name owned by Colt. I suspect many smaller mfrs were not mentioned but the rules still applied to their rifles as well. Regardless, I think we can come up with text that will both be happy with. Springee (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We don't need to mention the FAWB in the lead. - WOLFchild 11:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of mentioning it in the lead but only briefly. Springee (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets keep what we have for now, but not expand it and work on the body text first.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel if you are to mention this it should be made clear and concise to the reader, with wording supported by the reference. -72bikers (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

it does at the moment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with handguns

(Removed sock edits per WP:EVADE)

• These descriptions apply to some, but not all, of the various modern sporting rifles being described as AR-15 style. It is important to specify which cartridge the rifle in question was chambered for, as some are chambered for handgun cartridges, and some fire larger bullets, and/or have smaller magazines. Thewellman (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Quantify prevalence in mass shootings and identify recent time frame

(removed sock edits per WP:EDVADE)

This really gets to the heart of the disagreement. Although AR-15 style rifles haven't been used in the most mass shootings, they have played a role in the deadliest ones. This is why it is described as playing an "outsized role" and as the "weapon of choice". Most of the "conflicting" sources that have been brought forward do not address these specific metrics. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Note IP has been blocked as a HughD sock. --NeilN 17:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• If handguns are used in the majority of these crimes and ARs are in the minority, then it would seem that handguns are the "weapon of choice". - WOLFchild 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well not in the most recent cases, which is I think the point. That is why a time frame might be relevant. In fact it only seems to be over the last 10 years that the AR-15 derivatives have become so popular among the perpetrators of such crimes (in fact it was first used in this way in 2007, why is open to question, but it may be no accident that sales boomed over this period as well).Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Facts make this claim a untruth and simple misleads the readers because of recent news cycles. =72bikers (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Which fact? that there has been a rise in their use?Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of "many" in lead

Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, according to the New York Times. It has been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association. It has been used in many mass shootings in the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban restricted the Colt AR-15 and derivatives from 1994-2004, although it did not affect rifles with fewer features. There are an estimated 10-12 million in circulation in the United States.

References

1. ^ Feuer, Alan (13 June 2016). "AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 February 2018.
2. Plumer, Brad (2012-12-17). "Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
3. "Guns Like The AR-15 Were Never Fully Banned". FiveThirtyEight. 2016-06-14. Retrieved 2018-02-26.

The word "many" has been added and removed several times. My opinion is that we should give the reader some idea of the magnitude of its mass shooting use, and the sentence could be improved with more precise wording. –dlthewave ☎ 02:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, thanks for taking the lead on this discussion. I don't like "many" because it's a poorly defined term. How many is many? It also, in this context, imparts a value judgment that we should avoid with out attribution. I've been trying to think of something other than "many" since we are certainly dealing with more than just one. I would suggest something like "a number of". It's less value laden while still making it clear this isn't a case of just the examples listed. Given the political nature of mass shootings, which isn't the subject of this article, I favor a "just the facts" approach. Springee (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly there have been many. "A number of" is weasel wording. And if User:Springee doesn't consider the mass shootings currently listed as sufficient to justify many, I wonder why s/he earlier prevented me from adding the Waffle House shooting? Then, the justification was that it somehow wasn't sufficiently notable. Now, there aren't enough to justify "many"? Also, "many" has been in the article for quite a while before being "stealth removed" by User:72bikers. My attempt to return the page to its previous form so we could reach a consensus here was blocked. I have no wish to start an edit war, but I think the page should be returned to its long-standing wording until/unless there is consensus on a change. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

WW, "a number of" is less weasel than "many" because it has no value judgement (large, small, a lot, a few etc). I said why "many" is a nebulous term and the Wafflehouse shooting was kept out for unrelated reasons. I would be more OK saying something like "the rifle has been subject to controversy due to it's use in mass shootings". I mean, that is why we are adding mass shootings to the article. Because of the controversy. Also, the inclusion of "many" isn't long standing. It was part of a wave of recent edits. Springee (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"A number of" is classic weaselease. It can mean anything and therefore means nothing. "Many" makes no value judgement; it is a simple statement of fact. "the rifle has been subject to controversy due to it's use in mass shootings" - first off, bad grammar. More importantly, this is again weaselease. What use? Why this rifle type and not others? The answer, of course, is that it's because this rifle type (and not others) has been used in many very deadly mass shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a weasel in your opinion. You are correct that it could mean anything but, and this is where you are incorrect, it doesn't impart a value judgment like "many". How do we define many? "I've had many flat tires." Well is that 2, 4, 16, 32? How many is "many" to you? "Many" is context sensitive since, say the total number of mass shootings in the US is insignificant compared to the many dollars the US spends on health care. The "many" deaths due to AR-15 type rifles used in mass shootings is small compared to the many deaths due to criminal homicide of all types in the US or due to traffic fatalities. We have to apply some level of judgment to decide when something is "many". Springee (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"You are correct that it could mean anything but..." Thanks for acknowledging that I am correct and your wording ("...a number of") is indeed weaselease. Again, "many" is not a "value judgement". It is a simple statement of fact. Yes, it is context sensitive (like essentially every other word in English) - and in the context of mass shootings, there is not the shadow of a doubt that this qualifies. Moreover, it ("many") is stated in precisely those words in the reliable sources we quote in the body of the article, so this word in the lede is simply summarizing the article as per wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agreed that "a number of" is not a defined term but claiming I agreed with you that it's a weasel word is dishonest. Springee (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The word "many" simply is not needed. There is a "Use in crime and mass shootings" section that lists all the shootings which also links to the "list of mass shootings", so readers can see (and judge) for themselves just how "many", (or how few) shootings the AR has been involved in. This is an unnecessary buzzword that only adds opinion, not fact along with undue weight. - WOLFchild 02:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Many seems an inappropriately subjective quantifier. The FBI defines mass murder as an event resulting in four or more fatalities. If handguns have been used in most of these events, but rifles have been a significant factor in those with higher casualty counts, the use of many in this context might be inappropriately interpreted as a major fraction of these events -- perhaps suggesting most. Has a reliable secondary source specified a count? A count would be the best alternative. Several might be a more appropriate quantifier in the absence of of a count; but I agree no quantifier is needed. A single mass murder is a tragedy, and the plural form is clearly worse. Thewellman (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that say "many", and we say so in the text. The lede is supposed to summarize the text. If you prefer a count, what about "at least six mass shootings with at least fifteen fatalities." Do you really prefer that? We have reliable sources for all of those already in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Disregarding my reservations about publishing an instruction manual for mass murder, I consider that proposed at least quantification preferable to using many; although I suggest that level of detail is better suited to the explanatory paragraph than to the leading summary. The problem with many is the lack of any comparison offering a clue to the logical question: "How many?" Readers reducing the tragedy of mass murder to statistics (possibly including those hoping to set a new record) will find value in definite quantification which many cannot provide. Thewellman (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The RS we use to support the sentence in the lead does not use many. Which RS do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In the section on mass shootings: "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile..." Ref 55, a CBS news article. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're basing it on this quote, then it is being taken out of context with the manner you're attempting to insert it into the article, which is just all the more the more reason to not use it, along with all the reasons listed by myself and others above. That's not even taking into account the fact that that the quote is not from an unbiased, neutral expert, but is only from the reporter, an unnamed reporter from the AP at that. - WOLFchild 05:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree I think the text "at least six mass shootings with at least fifteen fatalities." solves the issue, if we cannot have a vague (textual) estimate lets just say how many.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Many is not widely used or supported by the refs we cite, a couple use it and most do not. Just remove many and move on. PackMecEng (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Did I say we should include "many", I think I said we should just say how many. Is there a valid reason for rejecting this, after all is it now how many there are that is at the gist of obejction to "Many"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To much explanation for the lead, that belongs in the body plus adds unneeded POV. So no, just remove many and leave the sentence concise. PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The original objection to "many" was that it is imprecise and/or POV. Neither of these objections holds any water, as was clear from the beginning and is now even more obvious. When a precise alternative is offered - saying in a few words precisely how many, as reported in the body of the article - that is rejected as "to much explanation". Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways at the same time. Leaving off "many" or a number does not summarize the article's content correctly and therefore violates wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you have me confused with a different user. I never argued it was imprecise, I argued it was unsupported and not needed. Adding many does not summarize the body or the sources. You could argue that the exact number summarizes the body, but that is to much detail for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it POV? what sources contest the claim it has been used in many shootings? It does not matter if all RS say it is not, to be POV pushing it must go against an alternative POV from RS, one that says it has not been used in many mass shootings. What we have at this time is some RS saying "used in many mass shootings" some using variants of that worded different ways, and some RS that challenge a totally different claim. NPOV does not mean we give weight to all POV, only all significant ones (I.E. in RS, not held by us). Thus the POV argument is invalid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken on your understanding of POV. If you present a minority view, such as the many part, and then argue sources must be presented to disprove the minority does not make any sense. So we give weight to the significant view, which in this case is not the many line and don't promote fringe views. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate it is a minority view, you have not done so. By the way Fringe does not mean "not used in all sources", I bet most sources do not call the sea wet, that does not make the sea being wet a fringe view.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean besides how few sources use it or are you looking for a source that specifically calls it a minority view? PackMecEng (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean you have not shown that "so few sources use it" (and yes to be a fringe view it would have to go against stated majority consensus, not just not be said very often).Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay a quick search and here are two sources that show AR-15s not actually used in the majority of mass shootings Statista and BBC. Finding actual comparisons and stats does not seem to be super common but they clearly show many is an overstatement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that AR-15 style rifles are used in the majority of mass shootings. However, there is significant coverage of their role in the deadliest and most recent mass shootings: The nation's mass-shooting problem seems to be getting worse. And the latest, most serious shootings all seem to have one new thing in common: the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle. AR-15-style rifles have increasingly appeared in American mass shootings, including the deadliest high school shooting in the nation's modern history at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., Wednesday. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, "majority" does not mean "many".Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

When you use many to describe a minority incident it gives a misleading impression. Yes its roll in mass shootings has received a lot of coverage the past fews months. But that does not mean it has been used in many mass shootings. Perhaps used in recent high profile mass shootings, but that would date the article and not be right either. So at this point, few sources use many and statistics show it is not many, so I am not sure there is much left to discuss. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No statistics show it is not a majority (after all we do not know what many means, but it does not mean "majority" as there is a word for that). And you have not shown few sources use the term, which is also besides the point. Few sources describe the sea as wet, that does not mean it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

(to be fair so many), (also so many), , (*also so many). So how many sources do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So your first one qualifies many as the deadliest mass shootings not mass shootings in general. Second one just the headline with no qualification in the body, we don't use headlines as fact. Three seriously a video? Four supports it. Five is the same exact content as three. So lets count that up, you gave five sources and only one supports what you said. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Videos can be RS, do you think this one is not (and headline may not be good for facts, they can be used to show someone uses a term (as they are using it)? (but no doubt you will say they only say in many of the worse mass shootings, so maybe change it to "many of the worst mass shootings" and address that concern of yours) , yep you are right, it needs to be many of the worst (by the way the video had been used by multiple small newspapers, want a few links?). . So we have plenty of sources for "many of the worst mass shootings". And a few for "many mass shootings" (even more if we include all the newspapers that use that video).

Of course they do not all use the word many , of course commonly and many are virtually synonymous. Want more?Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the word simple because it misleads the reader as other editors here agree with. I did not attempt to do this stealthily as claimed. I simply did not think it quantified a explanation in my edit summary with the rest of that edit.

I would also like to point out here for all to see I have repeatedly ask editors to not make repeat unfounded accusations of my character with unjustified warnings on my talk page. Even after repeated request to not post on my talk page as inline with Wiki policy. Editor Waleswatcher, and Dlthewave, , fails to understand this policy. Editor Dlthewave even encouraging to keep doing this as some how he feels he is a admin or simple someone who does not need to follow Wiki policy. -72bikers (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes videos can be RS, this one is not. With headlines, we do not use them for content especially when what you want to use from them are not in the body at all. As for the links this time, they are specific that this is a recent development and not longstanding of their use in mass shootings. Which again not for the lead but detailed in the body. Also the last link is again to the same video... It's a nice video but you don't have to cite it from three places as separate sources. But as to your offer, sure lets see some that actually have to do with how we are using it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is that video not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In this situation, unless I missed it, it does not support the claim of many. BTW this is the original link from the people that made the video. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a new suggestion. and you have not said how video this is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not a RS for the claim of many since it does not make that claim. Sorry if I was hard to understand in my previous post. PackMecEng (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Your right, it says common, which means practically the same inn this context, used a lot (and weapon of choice). But aa=s (I said we can uses these sources to say "many of the worst mass shootings", its what many of them do.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by it would be fine in the body for such things to expand on. Just that it is going to far into specifics for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In the end there is no need to use an imprecise word like "many", "majority", or "a number of". I've added a quote from a source that specifies exactly how prevalent their use is in recent mass shootings. It's concise, precise, and factual, so none of the above criticisms apply. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this WP:BOLD edit. WW restored it a few minutes later (along with a questionable edit to the lead of Colt AR-15). This is contentious but it's very hypocritical to get mad about a "stealth" edit and then think that such restorations are acceptable, especially since the section is under active discussion and many editors are clearly against such a change. Springee (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus on "many". Since "many" was the original state of the article before these changes and this discussion, per wiki policy we should simply restore that. However when I did so you reverted me. You advanced some arguments against "many", all of which I addressed with this recent edit (and it also addresses most or all of the other editor's objections, so no, it is not true that many editors argued against such a change). But you reverted that too, and falsely claimed on my talk page that there is a consensus to remove "many". As for stealth, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I object to are contentious changes that are snuck in with other changes and not mentioned in the edit summary.

Now, can you please try to be constructive? Maybe we can work together and improve the lede. What about the current edit don't you like? It certainly isn't vague or contextual, it's a clear, concise, and precise statement of fact (and reliably sourced). What is wrong with it? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently 5 editors are against and 3 (4 included the original editor) are for. We don't seem to have a strong policy argument in either direction and the inclusion of many is not that old. The article has been under constant revision since the material was added thus long term doesn't apply. You reverted two editors yet didn't start the talk discussion. Deciding that the best action was to expand the disputed material after being reverted is very problematic. Springee (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

5-4 is not a consensus. More importantly, per wiki policy these debates are not decided by raw number of editors - they are decided by reasoning and wiki policy. Which of the arguments you made against "many" apply to my latest edit, which was a good-faith attempt to address your concerns? Thanks in advance for your constructive response. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so let's grant you that your edit was a good faith attempt to come up with a solution. When it was reverted you should have moved to the talk page per BRD. Why instead did you restore the material? Where is the consensus of and kind for your new edit? You can at least make a reasonable claim that "many" is long standing (though I disagree since the article has been constantly under revision for the last two months and the material was not part of the article prior to that). But you can't claim your most recent edit had any consensus support. Springee (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, so you accept that you should not have reverted my "many" edit. Thanks for acknowledging that error on your part. Despite that, I tried to take your complaints in good faith and find a way to address them. I think my recent edit did so. But you reverted it for no reason other than lack of pre-consensus - despite acting that way yourself.

Now, can you please explain what you find objectionable about the current edit? I have asked you that many times now, with no response. After this point I will have to assume you actually have no substantive objections. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well at least you want to discuss it but you are failing to understand BRD. Why don't you start by explaining why you think this is a good compromise. Wp:Onus is on you. Springee (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I already explained that several times. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No you failed to explain why, and not for the first time here, you failed to follow BRD and instead went for BR edit war. Springee (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing? It seems you have your heels dug in. I explained multiple times, starting with the edit summary and in several other places. For instance, just above I you can see where I wrote: "In the end there is no need to use an imprecise word like "many", "majority", or "a number of". I've added a quote from a source that specifies exactly how prevalent their use is in recent mass shootings. It's concise, precise, and factual, so none of the above criticisms apply." You have never responded to any of that substance, despite reverting and commenting many times now on this edit. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

More specific wording

The discussion seems moot as the recent change is an improvement and should have addressed the concerns about the vagueness of "many". K.e.coffman (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per K.e.coffman. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support If the objections is "we need more definite information" then this gives it. But I think this may need an RFC or admin intervention now. We cannot have too much information, but we need more information (are the objections raised to both version, and indeed any version).Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly to much detail for the lead. Should be left in the body. PackMecEng (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support This version addresses the "too vague" concerns and is still a single, concise sentence. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per PackMecEng. Springee (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. It's clear, concise, and precise statement of fact (and reliably sourced). Lead summarises the body, so perfectly due there. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In a effort to bring about a more neutral tone.-72bikers (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Move to body - Material in the lede should summarize what is presented in the body. The material added into the lede has no context from the body. Add a single sentence to lede once the material is in the body. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Addendum - I've been pinged to this discussion once more because my position seems unclear to some. I've taken a second look at the precise edit request and the material. It's mildly convoluted, when I read the most recent six of the ten deadliest I first thought "wait, most recent (2012) or deadliest? (1966 - UoT is left out by the cited article, no idea why)" though I've worked out that it is meant to convey "the six most recent of the ten deadliest" (different word order). I hadn't noted that the first time. There is a problem with this. It's true now, but will not be true later. I say will not because it'll either be "seven most recent of", or "zero most recent of". I can support this being in the body (until such time as it becomes untrue), but not in the lede. I'll add that the lede shouldn't contain copies of material from the body. I meant that a single sentence summarizing the whole section be added to the lede, not the same sentence re-added. I've contrasted it against what is currently written: It has been used in many mass shootings in the United States. Poor because vague and inexact. Neither option is particularly good. Consider me neutral on the lede question. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:, how about "Six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in recent American history have used an AR-15-style rifle"? That avoids the "most recent six" issue you bring up. It's also close to the lead sentence of this article.Waleswatcher (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That would work better for the lede, yes. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To address the "most recent" ambiguity, perhaps we could add a timeframe such as "between 2007 and 2018". The trend will be relevant to the history of the weapon even if statistics change in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but some editors might object it is too detailed. Personally I'm not very worried about "future proofing" whatever we say, given how much attention this article gets. What do you think of "Six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in recent American history have used an AR-15-style rifle"? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, why would we arbitrarily pick that time span? Why not 2008-2018? Why not set the limit to 2004 (end of the AWB) or expand the scope to the 20 deadliest? What about the top 3 deadliest? At some point these become very arbitrary and by picking the cut off the data can look really skewed. It would be good to find a source that actually spends some time reviewing some of this data and comparing it to other firearms in mass shootings as well as in normal crimes etc. Springee (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Even though the article was locked I will note at least one reason to reject the changes to the lead Waleswatcher was suggesting for the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the later discussion. So if our mention of mass shootings is "6 of 10" then the lead would imply we will only discuss those 6 shootings (in some form) and could be taken to mean no other mass shootings have used such a rifle. Basically that isn't an umbrella statement to cover the complete topic. Springee (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Note additional survey type replies are located after the edit breaks. Springee (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD policy states "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."

The WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement ." -72bikers (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

"Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" , well given the shear number of RS that say this (in fact for the last few years at least the most publicity the response gets is its use in mass shootings) it is hard to see how this violates undue, as it is clearly a significant and very prominent viewpoint (undue says nothing about it being wrong).Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Remember, this is the lead, not the body. Also remember that weight goes with experts, not just the most media talking heads. Springee (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And experts have not contradicted this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remember, we don't have consensus for today's edit suggestions. Some argue the last stable version was the one with the word "many". I don't agree but at least a case can be made there. Let's not continue to change the article vs proposing changes here. If nothing else it will likely make things more cordial. Springee (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually a this time we do, a clear majority agree with the edit.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No we don't because we don't have input from other editors who have weighed in. We don't declare consensus because a few more editors on one side vs the other happen to be editing this morning. Especially when the discussion is contentious. Springee (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You will note I said "at this time".Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: just because you may disagree with the current consensus, it's still not a reason to engage in an edit war. You are at 3RR. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to wait for an equal number of editors from each "side" to weigh in as Springee implies. It may be that one perspective reflects the consensus and the otherdoes not. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually you should, especially since several of the editors were here just yesterday. Funny that the previous consensus against "many" wasn't a consensus but this one is. Springee (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Was there a clear consensus, I see almost a 50-50 split (with I think one vote more for "No".Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that there is a clear majority (for now). Debates like this are settled by reason, logic, and wiki policy, not pure numbers of editors supporting or opposed. There have been no valid arguments provided by those opposed. The only one is "too detailed for the lead". That's simply not true. Per wiki's manual of style:

should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

That's precisely what this does. To contextualize this, explain why it is notable, and include this prominent controversy requires saying something about how often these rifles were used in mass shootings. (In any case, this debate started because one of the editors giving that reason attempted to remove the single word "many" because it was too vague, so this "reason" is quite ironic.) Waleswatcher (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that you want it settled by reason. This would be a great chance for you to start.

Here is a good reason, the lead summarizes the body. This information isn't in the body and based on the agreed content in the body this is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is "AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes", just not using those exact words.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to today's edits. A good rule of thumb is we shouldn't have to add sources to the lead to support content in the lead. The lead should be supported by the sources in the body. Springee (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Today's edits are very closely related to information already in the body. But since you feel they are not close enough (and I agree that this is a particularly effective way to see how prevalent the use of these riles in mass shootings really is), I will add this reference to the body. OK? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Today's edits required new sources and didn't summarize the body. If you want to add that material to the body get consensus first. Remember this is a DS article and we are now dealing with material that has been subject to debate very recently. Suggest changes here first. Springee (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any requirement to gain consensus before adding material to this article. We generally follow BRD. –dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no such requirement. In any case, Springee asks me to "Suggest changes here first". That is precisely what I just did. So, Springee, do you object to adding this source to the body of the article? If so, on what grounds? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

BRD is always a good idea. WW should have followed it this morning (as well as at the Cold AR-15 article). That said, when the part of the article in question is currently subject to discussion being bold is often being reckless. An inherent assumption in BRD is that the area isn't currently being discussed. That was true when WW made the change to the Colt AR-15 page earlier today. That wasn't true here. Springee (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I ask for a third time - does anyone (User:Springee?) object to my adding this material to the body? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be discussed here first. Springee (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Kafka would be proud... You are objecting to adding material in a discussion on that material, on the grounds that the material must be discussed before it can be added. Do you have any actual, fact- or reason-based objections? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• At this point with the votes above there is clearly no consensus for inclusion of the new material. It should be removed when possible. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Quite the contrary. I count five editors in favor (counting Mr rnddude, who wants a sentence added to the lead on this once it's also include in the body - I'll go ahead and do that when I can) versus three opposed. More importantly, the three opposed have made no argument at all apart from "too much detail" - which is easily fixed and in any case false, see any other page on wikipedia practically - and "neutral tone", which this is as a pure factual statement. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Do everyone a favor and propose the text here vs edit the article first. Let's get agreement then make the change. It's much better than kicking off a new edit war after you just participated in the one that got the article closed. The body text was previously subject to quite a bit of debate. If you intend to change that text you should ping the involved editors. If you are optimistic in your appraisal at best you have a weak, local consensus. Get wider agreement first. Springee (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, that is not how consensus works. My rnddude is correct that it is unsupported in the lead and should be in the body. That does not mean the purposed addition is what should be in the lead. So at this point, it is correct to label it no consensus in which case the previous text is restored. PackMecEng (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no, that is not what s/he wrote, which was "Add a single sentence to lede once the material is in the body". It is not true the material in the lead is unsupported in the body. The body says the same thing in slightly different words and in more detail. It lists all the mass shootings, for instance, rather than simply giving the number. Springee, hardly anything needs to change in the body for that reason. I'll just add the count and the reference, more or less as in the lead currently. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You do get that editors are outright telling you to propose your change here before making it to the article. Don't "just add" anything at this point as that will be disruptive editing. Get explicit consensus first. Springee (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it will not be disruptive, adding it will be standard wiki practice by BRC. Moreover the change is very minor - it's adding one new reliable source and a count of what is already in the section. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"adding it will be standard wiki practice by BRC" What does the Bathrobe Cabal have to do with this discussion? Springee (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They aim to enforce the 1RR. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the "many" version had been around in a stable article long enough to claim it represents a consensus view, but the proposed updates clearly did not have consensus. I've restored the "many" version. Springee (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, I did comment regarding the change on the talk page, see above. Per consensus there is no consensus to support the version we had over the last week which was frozen due to an article lock. Edit locks are not meant to represent an endorsement of any particular version of the article and don't count as a "stable consensus". Per WP:CONSENSUS if we don't have a consensus for a change the article goes back to the last stable version. We can argue if that should be to even before the "many" was added to the article but it was not the version we had for the last week (see all the objections and arguments above) Springee (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee is correct, we revert back to the last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this comment until now (this talk page is a mess, I only found it through edit history). Anyway the lead has been unchanged for about a week, so it will require consensus to change it. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

And to add to that, we have five editors in favor of this version (with something also added to the body in the case of Mr rnddude, which has been done) versus three against. More importantly, those opposed have not advanced any arguments beyond "too much detail" or "neutral tone". Neither argument holds any water. "Too much detail" - it's only a short sentence, longer only by a few words from the "many" version, but much more informative. "Neutral tone" - it's no different in that sense from "many", and it would violate NPOV not to mention these shootings in the lead. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with some Wiki policies, guidelines etc before making changes like this. You have three times failed to follow BRD, you failed to understand APPNOTE, you put together a RfC that was immediately closed for several reasons. The majority of the week was when the article was locked. When Oshwah froze the article it was to stop an edit was. It was not an enforcement of any particular state of the article. At this point I would ask that you revert your edit here ]. Please note Slatersteven's comment above. Springee (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, we have consensus for this change - editors supported it by 5-3, and the arguments against were weak and never fleshed out. Furthermore, the article was stable for the last week. It is true that part of that time it was locked (after you reverted three times in 24 hours, if I recall correctly), but it remained stable for several days after that. It should remain as-is until we reach consensus for a change. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You've just reverted a change that restored the article to its state for the last week, and that is supported by the consensus here. You asked me to "take it to the talk page", but there is already a discussion here, in progress, to which you did not respond. Can you explain your actions, please? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: there's a rough consensus for inclusion here - what is the issue then? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't really care what exactly is said about the mass shootings, but I think it should be more than the plain "has been used in mass shootings", since that just is too vague and doesn't explain why it's even worth mentioning. I'd support "many" or the specific wording presented here. But maybe as a compromise we could do something like "a disproportionate number of deadly" mass shootings? It's accurate and supported by the sources, more specific than "many", and captures the essence of why AR-15 usage in mass shootings is notable (not because most mass shootings involve AR-15s, but because a surprisingly high number of the deadliest ones do). Plus it doesn't have the drawback of the exact numbers, which might be too detailed for the lead or could be seen as arbitrary, and worse, will probably have to be updated with some frequency, the way things are going. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder why it should be considered a disproportionate number of deadly mass shootings. Do those sources suggest what a proportionate number might be? Thewellman (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Men constitute about 50% of the US population, but over 90% of the prison population is men. Therefore, we say "men make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population". AR-15s make up maybe 5% of the guns owned in the US, but 60% of the 10 deadliest shootings were committed with AR-15s, thus they are used in a disproportionate number of the deadliest mass shootings. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Red Rock Canyon. "a disproportionate number of deadly mass shootings" is a good compromise, but it is subject to the same criticism that was leveled at "many" - it's not entirely precise. That was why I changed the wording to something more precise. Still, if we put your wording in the lead, and added the sentence about 6/10 to the body, that could work. What do you think? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest disproportionately high might be less ambiguous, although some statistical bias remains because of the cutoff criteria for most deadly mass shootings. Does an expanded list including events with fewer casualties (not necessarily all events, but perhaps twice as many of events with the highest casualty counts) illustrate a similarly dramatic disproportion? Thewellman (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What about noting that their use in mass shootings is disproportionally high as compared to their overall use in crime? Springee (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So adding more stuff to that part of the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, some editors objected that there was "too much detail" in the lead already. I don't agree, but saying things like "disproportionally high as compared to their overall use in crime" adds more detail, especially because it would require careful sourcing. Moreover, we don't actually have a source for that as far as I know.

Thewellman, "Does an expanded list including events with fewer casualties (not necessarily all events, but perhaps twice as many of events with the highest casualty counts) illustrate a similarly dramatic disproportion?" I'm not sure, but finding out might constitute OR. For now we have a source that looks at the 10 deadliest shootings, which is certainly a reasonable thing to do. You mentioned you'd be OK with the 6/10 wording. If you do support it, would you mind stating so unambiguously? That would give a clear 2-1 consensus and we could put this to bed (for now). Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of editors who've weighed in on this topic I would hope you would avoid acting until there is something more than a 2:1 "consensus". Springee (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Your proposed specificity will sadly be outdated as crime use is still a ongoing issue. As a guns type is irrelevant as experts have stated these guns are not being chosen for any specific reason. Just what was on hand and available, as recently seen.

As seen a specific gun did not cause these crimes, but more likely (especially the schools) physical bulling and being ostracized as well as mental health issue is at the heart of this. That is what should be addressed instead of demonizing guns. All you are doing as experts have said "...it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.” is more likely hurting your goals instead of helping them.

Perhaps you should step back and really try to look at this from a analytical mind instead of a emotional one. -72bikers (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thewellman hasn't yet responded, but they had no objection to the wording. Given that we already have a clear majority in favor, not to mention much stronger arguments in favor of inclusion, I'm restoring the edit. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please forgive my delay in formulating a response. Like Springee, I have difficulty perceiving a majority vote among three individuals as consensus on an issue of interest to such a broad spectrum of editors. I remain concerned about emphasis on statistics without understanding the reasons for those statistical differences. My investigation of additional proportions was an attempt to assess reliability of sources on this subject rather than to publish this original research. My quick estimate (although perhaps not quick enough) indicates AR-15 style rifles were reportedly involved in seven of the fifteen highest death-toll United States mass shootings of the 21st century, and eight of the 21 with the highest death-toll if one reaches back to include earlier events when these rifles constituted a lower percentage of our civilian firearms inventory. In comparison, handguns were reportedly involved in twelve of the fifteen and eighteen of the 21. While these numbers tend to validate the disproportionately high assessment on the basis of total civilian firearms inventory, the presence of handguns might be perceived as more significant without more detailed attribution of injuries to weapons. I am less concerned about the presence of stale information, because history suggests this article will be rapidly updated to reflect recent events.

I suggest statistical comparison with total civilian firearms inventory may encourage inappropriate conclusions because of the high percentage of antique firearms in that inventory. Firearms may have a longer lifespan than many other machines, but collectors' pieces are fired infrequently. Just as the majority of highway travel occurs in modern automobiles, recently manufactured firearms are most likely to be actually used rather than merely preserved for display or as memorabilia of a deceased owner. Aside from the possibility of becoming nonfunctional through heavy use or inadequate maintenance, it is difficult to find ammuntion suitable for many older firearms. A large percentage of older firearms are sequestered in collections while recently manufactured firearms are more frequently removed from their storage locations for use. Thewellman (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thewellman, as I said before I'm fine with your "disproportionately high" wording, but the problem is that it has to be reliably sourced. In a contentious article this one that's especially crucial, and your own checks won't stand against editors that object to the lack of RS. That's the strong point of the 6/10 wording - it's a fact, it's indicative of the disproportion, it's unambiguous, and it's reliably sourced. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Unambiguous? I interpret disproportionate to be either unexpectedly large or unexpectedly small in proportion to something else. The version I'm looking at seems to omit both the point of comparison (presumably the AR-15 style rifles' unstated percentage of the civilian firearms inventory) and whether it is larger or smaller. I confess to being confused by the various suggested wording. Perhaps a restatement of the proposed language will clarify these points for me. Thewellman (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thewellman - agreed! Disproportionately high is definitely better than just disproportionate. But by "6/10 wording" I was referring to the current wording: "AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history." My point was just that that wording really can't be (and in fact has not been) criticized on the ground of any wikipedia policy, because it's a simple statement of fact that's well sourced. "Disproportionately high", while clearly true, could be criticized (and probably would be) unless there is a reliable source that says it or something very close. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, you were warned that there wasn't a consensus and that such an edit would be disruptive. Did you count Thewolfchild's reversion of your edit as an endorsement? Springee (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, there is a consensus as per K.e.coffman above. It is you and other opposed editors that are being disruptive in preventing it from being implemented. If you have actual substantive concerns or policy-based objections to this, what are they? Waleswatcher (talk) 01::08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewellman: If you have concerns about the reliability of sources, WP:RSN would be the appropriate place to raise them. Your personal assessment of firearms inventory does not disprove :statistics compiled by a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 01:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The objections raised in this discussion do not negate the consensus in the straw poll at the top of this subsection, which has not changed in a week. If a compelling argument is brought forth, perhaps editors will change their !votes. –dlthewave ☎ 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, you are way too experienced an editor to buy into the "1 week stable" claim. The article was locked. That doesn't count as stable. We have no consensus and it's self serving to claim the other side is the one with the lesser arguments. Springee (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant that the straw poll !votes have been stable for 1 week. The lock did not affect the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't indicate a stable article and ignores editors who objected previously and who reverted the change. There isn't a consensus by any rational standard. Springee (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Since no one here can agree on what the actual consensus of the above talks are, perhaps it's time for an offical RFC for the wider community with a proper closer. Sound good to everyone? PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In theory that's good but what is the question? RfCs typically work best with a clearly defined and B&W question. I don't think we have that here. Springee (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure yet. Needs to be neutral, clean, and a simple yes no. If you have any suggestions let me know and I will see if I can put a idea together by sometime tomorrow. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's current consensus for inclusion. If people disagree, then an RfC is a good idea to validate or repudiate the consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

{{U|K.e.coffman]], How did you come to that conclusion? Could you please do us a favor and explain who you think agrees and disagrees so others might judge this "consensus"? Springee (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well as I posed just above you I agree an RFC is a way to go since people are edit warring the material back in the article with talks on going and a clear no consensus result above. I would welcome some input on the wording though. PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC sounds like a good idea. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

{{U|K.e.coffman]], How did you come to the conclusion we have a consensus. You have made the change claiming consensus. Please explain why you think we have consensus. Springee (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I came to the conclusion after I had looked at the iVotes and the strength of the arguments. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

By my count we have 4 supports, 4 opposes and some other editors who don't cleanly fall into either camp. The strength of argument claim is problematic. After all, if we can be participant and judge, well my arguments are always the strongest... even when they are based on coin tosses :) Alternatively, I would suggest we don't have consensus. Springee (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There are five in favor - Mr rnddude said "Add a single sentence to lede once the material is in the body" which is precisely what was done. As for the arguments, K.e.coffman is correct. For one thing, I haven't seen any objections at all for the edit to the body. If you have any, please say what they are. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If Mr rnddude wants to count as "support" then they can say so. That would still put the survey at 5:4. The opinions of involved members as to what arguments are "better" is hardly going to be unbiased. Also, we aren't talking about keeping content out of the body. This is a discussion of the lead witch is MOS vs RS/WEIGHT related. Thus opinions as to what reads better/sounds better etc are more important. Either way, we don't have a consensus thus per policy the edits should be reverted. Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"The opinions of involved members as to what arguments are "better" is hardly going to be unbiased." Perhaps, but these debates are settled by arguments for and against, not votes. So, please engage with the issues. What precisely is wrong with the current wording to the lead, and how can it be improved? As for the body, if it's not about keeping content out, why does that content keep getting removed? Waleswatcher (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The debate has become needlessly circular. No consensus has been reached. Per policy the change is reversed and we can move on. Perhaps you can try contributing a new suggestion for the body text. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @K.e.coffman: - while reverting disputed content that is currently being discussed, you wrote in this edit summary; "There's current consensus for inclusion; pls see Talk:AR-15 style rifle#More specific wording". - "Consensus"...? "Clear consensus"...? As determined by who? You? Just a quick glance of the straw poll shows the !votes to be basically tied, so are you taking it upon yourself to judge the quality of the arguments as being clearly weighed in favour of one particular outcome over another? Are you essentially declaring this discussion as 'closed'? Perhaps an uninvolved admin should do a proper review and close on this discussion, before there's any further edit-warring. Thoughts anyone? - WOLFchild 01:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be problematic, were a editor says there views outweights others sheerly based on only there opinions. This would appear to violate neutral point of view WP:NPOV, specifically "without editorial bias." It has been stated on more than one occasion that they mystically know why readers would come to these article, in search of crime use. That would violate NPOV, specifically "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." This would subsequently also violate WP:UNDUE. They have not provided any reliable source for those claims of why readers would come to these articles.

There pushing of fringe theories would viollate policy also, "a Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight..." They have not shown any sources other than from news cycles, of which there is little mentioned now. There claimed views would also appear to violate WP:BALASP, specifically "give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". -72bikers (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC),

(edit break)

• Oppose - not only is it overly-detailed for the lead, but is is just ridiculously clunky writing. Furthermore, there is no need for for any lengthy or prominent mention of any criminal use in the lead, as it is but only one of the many, many aspects of the subject that are discussed and detailed in the article, (an article that is still critically lacking an all too necessary 'legitimate uses' section). Such lengthy, prominent notation of this one, minor, illegitimate use of this product in the lead is a violation of UNDUE and WEIGHT. There is already a detailed section about this in the article, with plenty of links for further info. That is sufficient. (imho) - WOLFchild 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It would seem that there is a movement on making gun articles into gun violence articles. I could see perhaps this content would be appropriate here in length if it was not covered already. But it is in many other articles devoted to this in great length. On that grounds (a violation of UNDUE and WEIGHT) there should only be a brief statement in the body and a Main article: here and perhaps a see also. Just because there is a guideline set for addressing this inclusion on a case by case basis, does not mean a free hand of inclusion. -72bikers (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, thank you for actually giving reasons! Now let's discuss them one by one.

• "overly-detailed for the lead" - let's compare. Your version: "AR-15 style rifles were used in many mass shootings in the United States". Consensus/extant version: "AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history." The six/ten language was added because some editors opposed to this change felt "many" was too vague. Now you are complaining it is too detailed? Perhaps the phrase "the primary weapon" can be removed, which would make it less detailed and shorter. Would that satisfy you?
• "ridiculously clunky writing" - wouldn't it be more constructive if you helped improve the writing, rather than just erase it?
• "there is no need for for any lengthy or prominent mention of any criminal use in the lead" It's not lengthy (barely longer than the other version), and no more prominent than the version you restored.
• "Such lengthy, prominent notation of this one, minor, illegitimate use of this product in the lead is a violation of UNDUE and WEIGHT." See above. If so, so is the version you restored. Also, note that an RfC concluded that information about mass shootings should be in this article.
• "There is already a detailed section about this in the article, with plenty of links for further info." Indeed, it lists all six of those mass shootings. As per wiki style the lead should summarize it, which this does, very concisely. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ww: Point #1: "let's compare. Your version: "AR-15 style rifles were used in many mass shootings in the United States"." - "My version"...? Uh, no... I didn't write that. Otherwise, I think I made it clear "what would satisfy me". As for points #2, 3 & 4: see my answer to point #1. - WOLFchild 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It is "your version" in that it's the version you recently edited into the article. You have not made clear what would satisfy you. Why not just say what that would be rather than making cryptic remarks? Can you please respond on substance? Or are you refusing to engage in discussion? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ww - "It is "your version" in that it's the version you recently edited into the article." - diff?

"Blah, blah, blah... cryptic remarks" - Seriously? If you honestly have no clue what my position is on this, then I really can't help you.
"Yadda, yadda, yadda... refuse to engage in discussion". Funny, I posted enough comments on this topic that I can hardly be accused of "refusing to engage". (In fact, a few people think I've posted too many comments here...) No, what I "refuse" to do is indulge you in your endless, circular arguments. Your questions have been answered and your arguments have been countered, all at some point, by someone, somewhere. This isn't accomplishing anything. - WOLFchild 00:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've restored the previous stable version of the lead. There seems to have been some confusion because the body text was changed (and revered) with the lead in the previous back and forth. I haven not changed the new material added to the body. This isn't an endorsement of that material just an acknowledgement that it wasn't changed while reverting the lead per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

less specific wording

I have taken the liberty of using a word used by many of the sources (including the ones we already use). It is less detailed and conforms to what RS are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The version without "many" and without the specific yet arbitrary numbers was more neutral. I've rolled things back so we can get a consensus first. Springee (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That ship has sailed - you already forced a change without consensus, and admitted as much above. The current wording was put in place to accommodate your objections. You haven't raised a single valid objection to it - in fact, you've steadfastly refused to engage in any debate on it. Moreover, you have now reverted the page three times in a 24 hour period. Note that this page is under discretionary sanctions. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that ship hasn't sailed. Your inability to see the objections doesn't mean they aren't real. Unless you can show consensus we revert per policy. Springee (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: we revert per policy, "we" who? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus#No_consensus, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Springee (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I ask you to obey policy and reinsert "Many" as that is what this is about, the removal of that word (without consensus).Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that "many" was a consensus but if you want to revert the article to "many" so we can then collaboratively come to a new consensus I will support that. Remember I'm at 3RR for the day so I won't be reverting today :) Springee (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say it was, I said removing it had no consensus (which per policy means it should not have been removed).Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, removing hadn't gained consensus but the counter argument was the article has been under near constant review/change since February. Thus changes such as the inclusion of many shouldn't be seen as some long term consensus. Either way, I think we can agree that we haven't shown consensus for the new changes (just a few hours is not enough time when we aren't dealing with a WP:SNOWBALL. Springee (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yet 50/50 was?Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been repeated controversial content inclusion with little to no discussion. But for some reason there needs to be such a big discussion on a simple word removal? Removing the word "many" did not change the statement but only gave it a more neutral tone, as the reference did not make this distinction -72bikers (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Read policy, you do not need to discus making an edit, you need to discus why you are reverting an revert. We discus when an edit is objected to. The removal was objected to, the inclusion was not (as far as I can tell) at the time.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is significant objection to the inclusion of that edit, how can you not see that? - WOLFchild 17:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

May I remind everyone WP:NOTVOTE, while straw polls may help forge a consensus, discussion is the primary tool to determining consensus. IMHO if usage during crimes, mass shootings being a specific type of crime, is mentioned then it should be balanced by other usage such as by law enforcement as an example. That said, that is better detailed in the body of the article, and a summary sentence included in the lead per WP:LEAD would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD policy states "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."

The WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement ." -72bikers (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a fact and a reference to the Use in crime... section

Once the edit freeze is lifted I plan to add the fact that AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in all the most recent of the deadliest mass shootings in American history, along with appropriate reliable source(s), to the Crime... section in the body of the article.

This is already stated implicitly in that section because the shootings are listed there, but this will make explicit precisely how prevalent the use of AR-15s in these crimes is. That in turn may help clarify for readers why so many sources refer to it as the "weapon of choice for mass shootings" or similar wordings. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This section really needs to be cleaned up. It's no doubt that this needs to be included, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the content per se, except that it honestly just reads a bit awkwardly. It would be nice to include some sort of text that gives actual statistics. For example, "have been used in X out of Y mass shootings that involve more than N deaths in the United States including..." At very least, I would suggest breaking that down into two sentences, for example: "AR-15 variants have been used in several high-profile mass shootings in the United States. Among these are..." (emphasis showing suggested changes). I would do the edit myself but quite frankly I am terrified to edit this article given the politically charged nature of it. --nezZario (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not going to go down to two sentences, as it will be demanded we include at least a sentence on the following.

Use in recent mass shootings (and maybe , per your suggestion, a sentence on the fact they have high casualty rates).

Not used in the majority of crimes (and maybe , per your suggestion, a sentence on the statistics of actual victim numbers).

A sentence about notable examples of said mass shootings.

A sentance about the port Arthur shooting.

And this does removes some material.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with this material. I think Slatersteven's suggestion looks good. I do think we need to keep the lead limited but the body could be expanded. I would suggest it's better to stick with more encylopedic presentations of material. Often we get people trying to put the soundbite type quotes into the article without context. That I think we should avoid. Also we should be careful about how we note high casualty rates since we have other examples such as the VT shooting that had high casualties but used pistols. I would actually like to expand some of the discussion of the controversy (side A says, side B says) but perhaps that's general "assault weapons" vs AR-15 material. Springee (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee that discussing the controversy at somewhat greater length is a good idea. This section is arguably the most important in the entire article apart from the lead, so there is no reason to skimp on length. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

An underlying issue here is the relationship or contrast between prevalence and effectiveness. Could elimination of the weapon(s) have prevented the event, or would use of different weapons change the casualty count? (potentially removing the event from media attention as a record holder) Unless sources identify features of the specific AR-15 style firearm(s) significant to the event or events in comparison to other firearms, I suggest neutrality requires focusing the comparisons on mass murders rather than mass shootings. It might be different if the focus was on comparison to other types of firearms; but if the casualty count is more significant then the firearm features contributing to that count, it would seem appropriate to discuss these rifles in comparison to other mass murder weapons including bombs, vehicles, poisons, or arson. Considering the casualty counts of bombings and vehicle ramming attacks in addition to the mass shootings would help illustrate the significance of availability of the weapons selected in terms of background checks, waiting periods, site security precautions, and recognition of danger. Thewellman (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't omit information from articles just because things could have turned out differently in some alternate reality scenario. Neutrality requires us to follow the lead of reliable sources, and those sources include significant coverage of the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings specifically. They also cover the features (magazine size, semi-automatic, long range, availability, etc) that account for this prevalence. It doesn't matter that someone could have committed the same crime with a different weapon, the fact is that they chose an AR-15 style rifle in many of these recent mass shootings. If you can find prevalent RS coverage that compares these various methods of killing then we can consider making that comparison in this article, but otherwise it would be WP:SYN. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree it would be inappropriate to omit information -- in this case information about mass murders. Listing only mass shootings may give the impression they are the most significant mass murders. Quick recollection of recent events in the United States indicates the September 11 attacks aircraft ramming attacks killed 2996, the Oklahoma City bombing killed 168, possible arson at the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire killed 165, the Happy Land fire arson killed 87, and the Waco seige arson killed 76. Each of those events caused more fatalities than the 2017 Las Vegas shooting (58) or the Orlando nightclub shooting (49). Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 and Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 murders killed 44 and 43, and the UpStairs Lounge arson attack killed 32. Those events exceeded the casualty counts of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (28) or the Sutherland Springs church shooting (26). It isn't speculation to include these events. It merely puts the mass murder effectiveness of generic AR-15 style rifles into perspective by comparison with other weapons. Thewellman (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I could not agree more with the above comments that it puts it all in perspective. I also have a source state that in the U.S. rifles are only used in 3% of murders. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we had a well-attended RfC about including criminal use in this article. Wider community consensus was that "a section on AR-15 style rifle about its prevalence in mass shootings should be included in the article." –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My response to that RfC, specifying the importance of describing features significant to the weapon of choice, was counted as supporting the consensus. Thewellman (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And we have just such a section in the article. It has been in the article since at least the close of the RfC. Springee (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand the issue it is not the number of crimes they are used it, but the increased deadliness of them. RS are making the claim they make crimes deadlier, do RS dispute this claim? So over the last 10 years (the period when AR-15's have been used as a mass murder weapon) how many people have been murdered with them as opposed to any other weapon single type of weapon?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources focus on the deadliness of the shootings, not the number of shootings that the guns are used in. AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history (from the lede) sums it up. Some sources compare this to the prevalence of handguns in shootings, which we've included in the body. Shootings are generally treated as their own category of murder which is why there is no comparison to vehicle rammings, airplane hijackings, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 12:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I recognize the interest of other editors in explaining the relationship of this type of firearm to mass murder; but merely identifying them as AR-15 style may encourage erroneous conclusions because of the widely varying features of rifles fitting that description. While sources who do not know the difference between an Airbus, a Boeing, and a Tupolev might reliably report that the deadliest airline accidents involve multi-engine, swept-wing, jet airliners with large seating capacity, eliminating planes with two or more of those features would be unlikely to improve air safety. Thewellman (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, how do propose we address this? –dlthewave ☎ 19:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

While all shooters will obviously use a firearm, it may be less obvious that most shooters will use the most widely available firearms and ammunition. I suggest initially comparing the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings to their fraction of recent firearms sales. Finding a disproportionately higher representation in mass shootings might justify comparison with shooting events producing fewer casualties. I suggest the most likely advantage to mass murderers would be the capacity for sustained rapid fire. How many bullets were fired by each firearm during the event? The number of bullets fired per unit of time in a mass murder event is an indicator of rifle capability possibly based on one or more of these features:

• Semi-automatic fire - Not all AR-15 style rifles are designed for semi-automatic fire, and the casualty count of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting may have been increased by modifications to increase the rate of fire above that of most AR-15 style rifles. Any modifications from semi-automatic fire should be specified.
• Magazine capacity - AR-15 style rifles come equipped with various size magazines. What was the capacity of the magazine(s) used in the event?
• Interchangeable magazines - Some AR-15 style rifles have limited ability to change magazines. How many loaded magazines did the shooter(s) carry, and how many were changed during the event?

The number of casualties (either dead or wounded) per bullet fired is more likely proportional to skill of the shooter (and vulnerability of the victims,) although cartridge characteristics may be significant. AR-15 style rifles use various cartridges; and rifle cartridges are typically more powerful than handgun cartridges so single hits in similar locations are capable of inflicting more significant injuries. What cartridges were used during the event, and what type of bullets were used (for example expanding hunting bullets or military full metal jacket loads.) Any cartridges used in mass murder events in significantly higher percentages than that cartridge's share of rifle ammunition sales might be noted.

Handguns are more easily concealed while approaching potential victims; but as potential victims attempt to distance themselves from a shooter, shooters of normal strength and dexterity may find it easier to hit distant targets with rifles than with handguns. AR-15 style rifles come with various length shoulder stocks, barrels, and barrel attachments. Shorter rifles may be more easily concealed while approaching the crime scene, and may be easier to aim in confined locations. What was the overall length of the rifle(s) used by the shooter?

Firearms other than the AR-15 type come in a similar variety of lengths and are capable of semi-automatic fire, firing the same cartridges, and/or using interchangeable magazines (some with high capacity.) Indications that any one of these features was significant might warrant consideration of restricting that feature on other types of firearms; while there might be little benefit from restricting AR-15 style rifles without the significant features.

Although I wouldn't discourage investigation, I suggest these other features (sometimes considered cosmetic) are less widely significant. Silencers may delay victim recognition of danger, although supersonic bullets (including the majority fired from rifles) still produce a sonic boom and the sound of the rifle action and ejected case is louder than usually portrayed in entertainment films. Flash suppressors may aid concealment and protect shooters' night vision from darkened firing locations. Muzzle brakes may reduce recoil, while impairing shooters' hearing. Pistol grips are found on most firearms in one form or another. Thewellman (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That isn't a summary of the body and it's only in the lead because WW edit warred the comment into the lead. Per BRD that content should go until there is consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost correct, the lead can summarize the body, it does not have to copy it exactly. The only reason this is worded that way in the l;dead is because of objections that a more paraphrased text was not specific enough. We in fact say (in the body " AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States", thus the text in the lead says (more or less) the same thing. Now there may be an argument for a switch (we move this text to the lead and move the lead text to the body). But to say the lead does not reflect the body is a misrepresentation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, the body explicitly lists all the shootings referred to by the phrase in the lead - so the lead really is a summary of the body, and a rather concise and clear one at that. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, just over half the lead discusses controversy and use in crime, yet use in crime is only one of the eight sections that make up the article (and that doesn't include the yet to be added "legitimate use" section that this article desperately needs). Therefore the lead is waaay out balance in comparison to the article that it is supposed to describe and adjustments are neesed. - WOLFchild 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It takes up one line, two if you add the line about the AWB (which many here did not think should be in the lead).Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"One line"...? It's the entire second paragraph, and there's only two paragraphs. - WOLFchild 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States according to the New York Times, and been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association."

Nope not really about the controversy or its use in crime. Rather its overall public image.

"AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history."

Yep about the controversy and its use in crime.

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban restricted the Colt AR-15 and derivatives from 1994-2004, although it did not affect rifles with fewer features."

Not about that controversy or its use in crime, and not included by those who want to include reference to crime. I have in fact susgested we could remove this.

"there are an estimated 10-12 million in circulation in the United States."

Not about use in crime or any controversy.

What we have is one line about it's use in crime and a lot of material that really have nothing to say about that issue, but is on the same paragraph. In fact over half this paragraph is (in effect) saying how popular it is. So I am now going to suggest we separate out the crime and prevention matter from, the material about it's popularity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

1) "...one of the most vilified rifles" - Yup, that really is about the controversy surrounding this rifle.

2) Glad you agree.

3) There is "no controversy" surrounding the FAWB? The inclusion of the "Colt AR-15 yadda yadda yadda..." in it? It's label as an "assault-"anything? It's affect on sales? It's affect on design and "features"...? Really? Like I said, there are only 2 paragraphs. One to summarize one section about a minor subject (6 out of 12 million used criminially) and the other paragraph to summarize the 8 other sections, all with more significant content, (and still nothing about 'legitimate use' yet...). You think that makes for a balanced lead? - WOLFchild 00:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And we are not talking about controversy, but the line about mass shootings (again). That is why I say only one line is about that subject, rather then wider issues (and if the paragraph is too long how about removing material about subjects that are not even in the body, like the AWB?). And we do not say 6 out of 12 million used criminally, if that is what we mean, we should say it, what we say is 12 million sold, and nothing else.

But there is your clue as to why this section is so long, if we removed the AWB (nothing to do with its use in mass shootings) that would make it shorter. If we combine the lines about its use in criminal acts, we might be able to lost another line. So do you agree we should remove the reference to the AWB?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree we should remove the reference to the AWB. It's a crucial piece of information about this class of rifles. It should be added to the body, either to the Criminal Use section or to another. Are there any objections to adding it to the body? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What about those who think that the lead is too long?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with that either. Wiki style is that the lead should not exceed four paragraphs. This one is only two, and pretty short and simple paragraphs at that. There's no reason to try to shorten it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What might help address User:Thewolfchild's concerns is lengthening the lead by including a brief summary of the rest of the article (modularity, comparison to military versions, etc.). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD policy states "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."

The WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement ." -72bikers (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what is an AR-15 "type" ???

The article needs to define what the topic is a bit better. Is this about weapons that call themselves AR15, or that are called that by others, or that have features from or what ??? There is some mention of them occurring after patents run out -- so can someone specify what features were definitive for an AR-15 that now copied make a rifle of the same 'type'  ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Basically, any rifle based on the the AR-15 design, also known as AR-15 pattern. Typically, regardless of manufacturer, and with few exceptions, almost any upper is compatible with any lower, use the same type mags, lower parts kit, bolt carrier group, stock & buffer tube, barrel mount, etc., etc.... all the parts and components that are common to this 'pattern', 'design' or 'style' (which is one of the main reasons for it's popularity). Conversely, if you take, say... the SIG MCX, which looks similar to the AR-15 (and has been confused for it), but has a different design and is not at all compatible with the AR-15. Hope this helps a bit. You're right, perhaps the article could make this a little clearer for those not at all familiar with the AR-15. - WOLFchild 03:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Was just about to say AR-15 pattern rifle when you posted. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It is kind of a tough term to nail down. Especially since they can be several calibers and some variation of mechanism. I suppose I'll know it when I see it will not suffice? The most in policy way would be if RS describe that specific model as a AR style rifle. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that: the multiple calibers that are available for this "platform" (ah, another descriptor), and the cross-compatibility of some calibers with the same rifle, (specifically the lower, which is the serialized, registered part) with only minor changes, had also contributed to it's popularity. It was initially designed based on the .223 caliber (5.56x45mm NATO for the milspec versions), though that design was based off an earlier .308 caliber/7.62x51mm NATO version. The AR-15 is now available in an assortment of calibers; 9mm & .45ACP pistol caliber carbines (with Glock mags - big bonus), 7.62x39mm, .300 Blackout, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowolf... to name a few. FYI - WOLFchild 03:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that is the part I was most curious on how we would nail that down. I personally have a .22 LR and 5.56 version, my dad has a 5.56 and .300 blackout. Various manufactures between with mine even being a 5.56 80% lower at birth. PackMecEng (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops! That's right, there is also the rimfires... .22LR, .17HMR and apparently .22WMR. Cheers - WOLFchild 03:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild - if you've got a cite for that, please insert it into the article. As it is, the article seems like it's a vague pejorative replacement for the rebuked usage of 'assault rifle'; or as referring to the 'look' such as a metal frame+pistol grip+ triangular front sight. Specific features and inter-changeable parts would make sense with the mentions of the patents expiring, and the commonality across makers for the parts and accessories would make flexibility and cost sense of the popularity. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The 5.56 and .300 blackout are a good example of how easy it is to change caliber, being you only have to change the barrel and all else is compatible. It even has the ability to convert from direct impingement to short-stroke gas piston. It's versatility is definitely its claim to fame. Also perhaps the reason why it's a little tricky to nail down -72bikers (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on "Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle"?

Here. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a legitimate uses section

I suggest adding something like the following, perhaps with a section heading: Modern sporting rifle Thewellman (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

While some consider these rifles "a perfect killing machine" unsuitable for civilian use, United States hunters find that a useful feature for humane kills while other citizens prepare for military service or police careers using the rifles for independent marksmanship and proficiency training.

Hunting

Some hunters prefer using AR-15 style rifles because of their versatility, accuracy, and wide variety of available features. Construction with lightweight polymers and corrosion-resistant alloys makes these rifles preferred for hunting in moist environments with less concern about rusting or warping wood stocks. Positioning of the AR-15 safety is an improvement over traditional bolt action hunting rifles. Many states require hunters to use reduced-capacity magazines, but the self-loading feature is important when shooting pack animals like coyote so several may be killed before the pack disperses and hides. If a hunter misses with a first shot, the self-loading feature enables rapid followup shots against dangerous animals like feral pigs or rapidly moving animals like jackrabbits. Hunters shooting larger game animals often use upper receivers and barrels adapted for larger cartridges or heavier bullets. Collapsible stocks are convenient for hunters who pack their rifles into remote hunting locations.

Competition

The popularity of self-loading sporting rifles has encouraged competitive shooting events emphasizing speed in addition to accuracy. The Precision Rifle Series for gas guns includes the Tactical Light Division for rifles like the AR-15 style shooting the original 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington cartridges with bullet weights not exceeding 77 grains (5.0 g) at muzzle velocities not exceeding 3,000 feet (910 m) per second, while a separate Open Division allows use of AR-15 style rifles with upper receivers firing other cartridges with bullet diameters up to 0.308 inches (7.8 mm) at muzzle velocities not exceeding 3,200 feet (980 m) per second. The ease of substituting accuracy enhancing parts makes AR-15 style rifles popular in Multi Gun competitive practical shooting events.

Well my first thought is maybe more then one source for popularity is competition, I am not sure one competition is enough. Also I think many might argue that hunting is not a legitimate excuse for anything (legal might be a better term).Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the competition shooting part needs more sources. It's probably worth adding things like Appleseed events to the section. Hunting is certainly a legitimate use but perhaps both could be put under a spring and target shooting category. The name of this section is one I would struggle with. Springee (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)#

Legal uses, seems easy enough, its what they both are, legal.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do other firearm articles have such a section? That could help. And if not, should this one? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not a legitimate reason to exclude material. Please review WP:OSE. Springee (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

One other thing, our lead says the rifle is "most beloved" and "promoted as American's rife". Well for better or worse, the material below talking about sporting uses and perhaps a section talking about enthusiasm for the rifle would be needed to support those talking points. If not then perhaps they need to go. Springee (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look at WP:OSE. The most relevant passage is

For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his film pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. Generally, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Misplaced Pages project.

(my bold). Hence, if we follow that essay, if other firearm articles do not have such a section, that is a legitimate reason to omit it here. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest description of uses including hunting is included in other Misplaced Pages firearm articles of similarly broad scope, including Combination gun, Bolt action, and Lever action. Thewellman (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making a "legitimate vs illegitimate" value statement, but hunting and competition are relevant to the topic and would be appropriate to include in proportion to their RS coverage. My only concern is sourcing. The two hunting-related sources consist mainly of anecdotal quotes from hunters, and the competition section should also include independent sourcing to establish weight. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the legit vs illegit value statement comment. These things should be mentioned but we also have to remember they don't get the news cycle coverage that a few high profile crimes get. But I think we can find a few more articles supporting various recreational uses and some articles talking about why the rifles are popular in general. WW, you missed that in WP:OSE the summary notes, "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others". Pages are edited by many people and not always in a coordinated fashion thus the lack of a section on one article is not justification for removal/exclusion at another. So long as we have some sources backing these sporting (and other legal) uses then we shouldn't blanket exclude them. Springee (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You do? Odd, because that was your term, not mine. Just above you wrote That is not a legitimate reason to exclude material and cited WP:OSE. Now that I've pointed out that WP:OSE says that it actually is a valid reason to exclude it, you're taking the opposite tack? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to exclude/include content in an article. But that wasn't what was being discussed. In this case it was calling the use, that is a title or label inside of the article, "legitimate uses" or the like vs say "Recreational uses" or "Sporting applications" etc. I hope this clears up your confusion. Springee (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The main question is whether such a section should be added at all. Per the essay you cited WP:OSE, it shouldn't if most other firearm articles don't have it.Waleswatcher (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to the hunting/sporting uses, should this add a section on particularity (perhaps as a lead into theses subtopics)? There are a number of articles that have come out in mainstream media, often around the time of a mass shooting, explaining why the rifles are popular with with much of the public. I have seen it claimed that in recent years the AR-15 is the best selling rifle type (firearm?) in the US. If that's the case we should include some discussion of why. If I get time tonight I'll link some sources. Springee (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the Appleseed source does not say it prepares anyone for police or military service, the closet it comes is "The combination of military-style rifle training,.." which does not mean it prepares anyone for anything.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. While some consider these rifles "a perfect killing machine" unsuitable for civilian use, United States hunters find that a useful feature for humane kills while other citizens prepare for military service or police careers using the rifles for independent marksmanship and proficiency training. This reads like an essay or news article, not an encyclopedia. It would be best to cover these things in separate sections (hunting, competitive shooting, criminal use, police use, etc.) rather than trying to compare them. We could describe the rifles and its features at the beginning of the article and explain how those features apply to various uses in the sections below. –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"This reads like an essay or news article, not an encyclopedia." But overly detailed crime content (from news cycles) in a article that is not about crime, is encyclopedic? -72bikers (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Moore, Ernest E. (February 15, 2018). "The Parkland shooter's AR-15 was designed to kill as efficiently as possible". NBC News. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
2. Dickinson, Tim (February 22, 2018). "All-American Killer: How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters' Weapon of Choice". Rolling Stone. Retrieved March 3, 2018.
3. ^ Metcalf, Dick. "The AR for Deer Hunting?". North American Whitetail. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
4. Schwartz, Mattathias. "Firing Line". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
5. ^ Drabold, Will. "Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill Using an AR-15". Time. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
6. Billings, Jacki. "Why hunters are trading in traditional hunting rifles for the AR-15". Guns.com. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
7. "Precision Rifle Series Gas Gun Rules and Standard Operating Procedures" (PDF). PrecisionRifleSeries.Com. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
8. Harrison, Iain. "How to Customize Your AR-15 for 3-Gun". Guns & Ammo. Retrieved 23 May 2018.

He is not saying it cannot be here, he is saying that it needs to be better written.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• guns.com appears to be a blog / e-commerce site.
• PrecisionRifleSeries.Com is the web site for the competition; non-independent source
• guns & ammo is an industry publication.
• Time should be probably attributed as it's paraphrasing the gun owner impressions.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Guns.com is more like an enthusiast news site ] like Edmunds' news and reviews or The Truth About Cars might be for automotive information. Certainly a voice of the enthusiast and generally reliable in the area of firearms tech and use. Springee (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Guns & Ammo is to firearms as Cycle World is to motorcycles. It is considered a independent reliable secondary source by experts in there field and very well respected. If a editor does not know this, then should they be editing gun articles? -72bikers (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Admin notes

Oshwah protected the wrong version before, I'm protecting another wrong version now. I will also be placing AP-style editing restrictions on the article. An article version needs to be deemed stable for reference purposes - the version I protected will do. This is not an endorsement of the content. --NeilN 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for the sentence in the lead referring to mass shootings

Proposed language:

Six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in recent American history have used an AR-15-style rifle.

This would replace the sentence "It has been used in many mass shootings in the United States". (Note this is not even grammatical, as "it" refers to AR-15 style rifles, plural.)

• Support: per reasons below Waleswatcher (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

1. This addresses User:Springee's objection to the word "many" in the current version as too vague/contextual.
2. It addresses Mr rnddude's issue with another version that mentioned this are the most recent six of the 10 deadliest. Due to that change Mr rnddude supports this version, see here.
3. It is concise, only slightly longer than the "many" version.
4. It summarizes the body, which lists those shootings.
5. Some language like this is necessary per the consensus to include information about mass shootings in this article.Waleswatcher (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Pearce, Matt (14 February 2018). "Mass shootings are getting deadlier. And the latest ones all have something new in common: The AR-15". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 11 May 2018. in all of the latest incidents...the attackers primarily used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.

• OpposeSame material as just discussed This is all but the same material as before (thus the previous objections and non-consensus apply). It also isn't an umbrella statement since it can be taken to imply ONLY 6 mass shootings have used AR-15s or that this article will ONLY discuss the 6 deadliest mass shootings. Also, I believe, just because the LA Times decided to use a 2007 cut off date, why should we? It would be better to say there is controversy surrounding the rifle due to it's use in mass shootings. That acts as an umbrella for discussing any relevant mass shooting (even ones with fewer deaths but high profile) as well as discussing the controversy itself. Finally, it's a less value laden language. Springee (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Springee, I'm compelled to address a couple of things here. 1) ... it can be taken to imply ONLY 6 mass shootings have used AR-15s .... No, it can't. That's ... absurd, to put it mildly. You might as well be arguing that only ten mass shootings have occurred in US history. We are after all, only discussing the ten deadliest ... so perhaps there were only ever ten to begin with. 2) Also, I believe, just because the LA Times decided to use a 2007 cut off date, why should we? - a) Not what is being discussed, and b) not what the LA times has done. The LA times makes a factual statement that seven of the ten deadliest mass shootings in US history happened since 2007. That's while considering all of recorded US history, and is easily evidenced by their inclusion of Killeen (1991), Edmond (1986) and San Ysidro (1984) as the other three of the ten deadliest. They missed the 1966 UoT mass shooting (18 victims), which should replace Edmond on the list, but that's a different issue altogether. Moreover, that's not what is being discussed here. The dates are irrelevant, the firearm used is what is being discussed. Six of the ten deadliest in all US history were committed with an AR-15 style rifle. It's merely coincidental that all six happened in 2012 or later (starting with Sandy Hook). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I understand what you are saying but consider what the actual proposed text says. The discussion of 2007 vs some other cutoff was had above. However, more to the point is the lead is meant to be a summary of what will follow. That is why I say an umbrella. The 6 of 10 claim isn't a summary, it's a hook. It tells the reader why the rest of the martial is important but it doesn't summarize the content. For instance, it doesn't actually express that the use in mass shootings resulted in controversy (vs just a statement of fact). It doesn't note that it was used in other mass shootings, even if they didn't make the list of 6 since 2007. Note that the 7 of 10 statement in the article is talking about deadliest mass shootings regardless of weapon. If we go with deadliest of all time I think we are at 4 of 10. Regardless, the factoid is a good attention grabber and helps convey a sens of emotion to the user but it isn't a summary. Springee (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a article of gun violence, splitting hairs is irrelevant. -72bikers (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)\

It is an article that must include gun violence per the RfC consensus. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• comment Do we need a new discussion on this, is the one above now closed?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dunno, but the discussion above is a mess and very hard to follow, and this wording is different. Since the page is locked for a week we have a chance to hopefully converge on something. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose What are you using to gauge the importance of this statement, suggesting that it needs to be coverd in the lead. I am not saying it should not be in Wiki articles or that it should not be discussed here. But this is not a article about crime use, there are numerous articles covering that already.

This content in the lead here would appear to vilolate WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events , criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." And also violate WP:UNDUE. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement." This content is no longer being dicussed in the media, like it was in the then news cycle after a AR was used in a mass shooting. In fact after the most recent, no mention in mainstream news and just talk of general gun reform. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• 72bikers sorry about that, I was trying to move my comment to Springee. I didn't realize that I'd caught part of your comment instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It happens, I know. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• 72bikers, the lead summarizes the article, and it was decided via a recent RfC that this article must include information on mass shootings. If you want to try to change the consensus on whether the article should discuss mass shootings at all please go ahead, but this isn't the right place to do it. Here we are just discussing what language in the lead accurately summarizes the content of the body. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe what you are referring to is, discuss crime use on a case by case basis. Also you still have not shown what supports its use in the lead. I presume you have read the policies I have cited here, which in fact disputes its use in the article with more than a brief statement and a see also or main article here (especially the lead) based on policy. -72bikers (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: The RfC concluded this (direct quote): "The clear consensus here is that...a section on AR-15 style rifle about its prevalence in mass shootings should be included in the article." The lead summarizes the article, and since we must include (and in fact do have) that section, the lead needs to summarize it. In fact, the previous language was arguably (per Springee) inadequate on this because it did not really describe the prevalence. Now, do you have any other objections? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why mention the RfC? 72bikres isn't suggesting we remove all references to mass shootings. As it stands the article addresses the conclusion of the RfC. 72bikers' concern, as I read it, is just that the article shouldn't be dominated by the subject. Springee (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look you read what they wrote: policies I have cited here which in fact disputes its use in the article with more than a brief statement contradicts the RfC, which concluded a section is required, not a "brief statement". Then there's you still have not shown what supports its use in the lead - the answer is, the section required by the RfC, plus the fact that the lead summarizes the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Specifically article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, and treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body This content is at the bottom of the article for a reason, and even there it is over covered. Specifically isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.. -72bikers (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You still have not provide legitimate rebuttal to the points I have made. I did not state the content needs to removed altogether. You still have not shown what would give weight to it to be in the lead. -72bikers (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You are still trying to deny the result of the RfC. The article must have a section on mass shootings, not a "brief statement" as you assert. Those are not even close to the same thing. As for the lead, I've already responded three times. Here is a quote from WP:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.Waleswatcher (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You are just splitting hairs on wording. Policy does state that this article not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, and discussion of isolated events , criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Clearly means that this content should not go into great detail in this article. This is what I am referring to in the brief mention, does not go into great detail, a heading and some content then a see also and or main here. Where it would be appropriate to go into detail. -72bikers (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WW, 72bikers isn't trying to deny the RfC. Springee (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they clearly are. "a brief statement" =/= "a section". Waleswatcher (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"in the article with more than a brief statement" does not state content should not be in article. The issues I have raised is what gives weight to this content that it needs to more than a few statements and a see also or main article here. This is what policy dictates we do. Your comment on the lead is to reflect the body of article does mot support your inclusion of that content to the lead as policy states, article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject and treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body also, discussion of isolated events , criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. -72bikers (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You have no policy that states this content should be covered by more than a heading and brief content then a see also and or main article here. The content does not have weight to be in the lead as you suggest as this content as it relates to this article is For example, discussion of isolated events , criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. and This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. This highlighted is taken directly form policy. -72bikers (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your attempt to place misleading meaning in what I said is irrelevant to the substance of the policies I have provided.-72bikers (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you proposing the crime content should be expanded in the article? -72bikers (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What I am stating is that not undue weight be placed on crime content, not that it can not be covered. Will you please address the substance of the policies I have put fourth. -72bikers (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I presume the text from policy "and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" is what you are claiming to support your content inclusion in the lead. Crime content is not the most important aspect of this article. In other article on that subject yes entirely. This is not a gun violence article. Also "prominent controversies" is contradicted by policy An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, Crime is a minor aspects of this subject. Again this is not a gun violence article. Also discussion of isolated events , criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic., also contradicts your claims of significance. -72bikers (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD policy states "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."

The WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement ." -72bikers (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers, thanks for posting these. However none of them address the issue at hand. The RfC determined that the article should include a full section on mass shootings. So there is no question of UNDUE, except perhaps in putting that section all the way at the end. It should be moved up, in fact. But regardless of that, the lead should summarize the article's content, and the current proposal does so in a succinct, neutral, unambiguous, and accurate way.Waleswatcher (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The required inclusion as stated by the RfC has been added ]. To meet the RfC outcome the article needs only to have, in the body, some mention of the rifle's use in mass shootings. Anything beyond that minimum is still up for negotiation. I think it would be hard to claim the lead summarized the body if it made no mention of the controversy surrounding the use in mass shootings. Since it does include that information again we are good. If anything the lead may be inadequate because it doesn't adequately summarize other sections of the article. No reason to keep harping about the RfC unless the material is removed. Your opinion that the material should be moved up was previously rejected. Your proposal, the 6 of 10 stuff, isn't a summary, rather it's a motivating statement, a hook to motivate why the material should be important to the reader. But that still isn't a summary. Springee (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Springee explained it quite well, but if you are still confused I will try and clear up your misconseptions. Perhaps you should go back and read the RfC, it only states the content should be mention in the article, that is all it states. It does not give you free range to do whatever you want. Nobody is saying the content should not be in the article. The RfC also does not trump policy nor does it contradict all of the policies I have shown you, they are completely valid. -72bikers (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks to both of you for acknowledging there is no issue of UNDUE etc. Now, regarding 6/10, the body says precisely that, only at much more length, listing all the shootings and citing sources that say the rifle is the weapon of choice. So, precisely how is this short sentence in the lead not a summary? What would need to change to make it a summary? Waleswatcher (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Support as a concise summary of the section. –dlthewave ☎ 15:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There really isn't a point to voting since this is the same content that was no-consensus above. Springee (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

More or less the point I made. This is going to go the same way.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You did.

When I pointed out we were already discussing this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, reading that after your reply my intended tone was likely lost. You did say as much and I agree with the point you were making. I shouldn't have let myself get dragged into another circular round of discussions. Springee (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WW by not addressing the actual policies you are violating, and then stating falsehoods is not going to persuade any editors. -72bikers (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wound characteristics

I'd like to include the following text:

• The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”

References

1. NYT-Wounds from Military-Style Rifles? 'A Ghastly Thing to See"-March 4, 2018

You are making a lot of assumption on its relevance. Comparing a rifle with a hand gun is not relavent to this article. it is common knowledge that a rifle is more powerful than a hand gun. You are also making a very specific claims with velocity, it is just on the high end with a very spicific barrel length, and most rifles have this speed and beyond. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons. It would also seem to appear you are asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured.-72bikers (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I expected no less. So a NYT article that explains the wounds from this rifle specifically is not in scope. AmazingFarcaster (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include: obviously relevant to the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The comments of the original poster is someone who is here to WP:RGW (based on edit summary comments here ] and the reply above). This isn't an article about ammunition or ballistics. Additionally, is there anything that suggests the wounds here are notably different than those made by a varmint or deer rifle? Why not just link to an article about the ballistics of the round instead? Springee (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, I expected no less. The NYT interviewed several trauma surgeons about the impact of being shot by an AR-15. Yet somehow that isn't relevant? There are about 4-5 of you that seem to aggressively patrol these articles and make sure factual content doesn't get included. I hope some heavy-duty administrators spot you guys and read you the riot act.Farcaster (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not about the AR-15 style rifle. It may be relevant to the article describing the 5.56×45mm NATO -- one of the many cartridges fired by this type of rifle and by many other rifles. Thewellman (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Rereading the source it explicitly says the rifles, not the ammo. One reason is (as I understand it) things like muzzle velocity are also affected by barrel length and other features that are a part of the gun, not the ammo.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• SupportRelevant and reliably sourced. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per what has been said on Talk:Assault rifle and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It's a very POV proposal that doesn't even accurately reflect what the article in NYT actually says. And A) wound characteristics depend on which cartridge/caliber has been used, not on what type of weapon that has been used, and B) AR-15 style rifles come in several different calibers, with different bullet diameter, bullet weight and bullet velocity, and widely varying wound characteristics. This type of information should be in articles about specific cartridges/calibers, not in an article like this, which is about a type of firearm. - Tom | Thomas.W 12:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W, as a matter of fact, wound characteristics depend on which cartridge/caliber has been used, not on what type of weapon that has been used is a false statement. Among other effects the muzzle velocity does depend on the type of weapon (mainly, the length of the barrel) and therefore so do the wound characteristics. So if that's what your opposition to this is based on, you might want to rethink it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the barrel length and twist rate of a AR-15 style rifle? Since there is not hard and fast standard for either of those it make it hard for comparison. PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, all statements about "AR-15 style rifles" come with the caveat that it's a loosely defined term.

That's an issue that affects the entire article.  If there are reliable sources discussing this for some rifles that are "AR-15 style", that suffices. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notice

An RfC related to this topic, Wound characteristics of military-style rifles, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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