Talk:AR-15–style rifle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Embarrassing

Is it too much to strive for both accuracy and good grammar?

I know you recently spent a bunch of time on the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section. But I think you can do better.

Here's the text, as of this moment:

Most killings and other gun crimes in the United States are committed with the use of handguns. As a result, AR-15 style rifles are used in a very low overall percentage of gun crimes in the U.S.,[52][53][54] but they have still played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[52] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] AR-15 variants have been used in mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[63] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[63] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[64]

• Killings are not necessarily gun crimes, nor are they even necessarily crimes. And, while you may have made a killing, it's not likely you've committed a killing. Further, were killings to be committed, more would be committed with the use of forks (to eat diets leading to heart disease) than with the use of handguns.
• It doesn't follow that the very low overall percentage of AR-15s used in gun crimes is a result of most killings and other gun crimes being committed with the use of handguns. Given the number of handguns versus AR-15 style rifles in the US, it would be remarkable if the latter were used in more than a very low overall percentage of gun crimes.
• I think the statistic you're trying to get to here is the one that says AR-15 style rifles are used in relatively few mass shootings. And...

Oh, to hell with it. Why try and fix something that is just going to be screwed up again in a couple of weeks? Cinteotl (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with point 1. Point 2 is valid and can be addressed. Based on material I've read, but don't have at hand, the percentage of firearms homicides committed with handguns vs long guns (AR-15s being a subset of long guns) showed that handguns are disproportionately used in crimes. I also saw a stat from a few years back that compared, I think, semi-auto rifles to handguns in mass shootings. It showed that something like 27% of mass shooting used semi-auto rifles (again I don't recall if it was semi-auto rifles vs assault weapons vs etc). So we could add some clarity there but only by inference. I think it would be be good to add that info but it wouldn't be "AR-15" stats. Are we comfortable adding that sort of material? Point 3 basically is addressed above. Springee (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No detailed stats are published on the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in crime. They're generally lumped in with shotguns and other long guns. Here are some possibly useful cites:

"Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns."[1]

"A handgun was used in about 83% of all firearm homicides in 1994, compared to 73% in 2011. Other types of firearms, such as shotguns and rifles, accounted for the remainder of firearm homicides. For nonfatal firearm violence, about 9 in 10 were committed with a handgun, and this remained stable from 1994 to 2011." [2]

"Handguns far outnumber both knives and rifles in American murders." [3]

Weapon types used in mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2017 [4]

Here's a possibly useful dif from a different article:

"While semi-automatic pistols are by far the most prevalent weapons in US mass shootings, AR-15 style rifles have been used in a number of the deadliest incidents, and have come to be widely characterized in the mainstream media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." [5] (Notice the good grammar?) Cinteotl (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This is well-written and factual, but I would remove the "mainstream media" qualification.

Several reliable sources focus on the AR-15 style rifle's role in recent shootings:

"Four out of the five deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history have taken place since 2012 and all four of those shooters used AR-15 model rifles in their attacks." [6]

"But in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Conn., in 2012; San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015; Orlando, Fla., in 2016; Las Vegas, 2017; Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 — the attackers primarily used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles." [7]

According to WP:SYN we must be careful not to imply or lead readers toward a conclusion that is not stated by reliable sources. For example, we shouldn't compare two statistics unless the sources also make that same comparison. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this statement Four out of the five deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history have taken place since 2012 and all four of those shooters used AR-15 model rifles in their attacks. - this is a fact strictly speaking, but it is not a neutral statement of a fact. The third deadliest mass shooting in the US was Virginia Tech and it took place in 2007. (This is discussed by academic sources I have cited elsewhere, I can pull them up again if editors are interested.) - this is important since the discussion about the AR in the media has focused heavily on the claim that one can kill more people with an AR than with a handgun (which is a disputed claim based on the full set of facts) - I recently read an article where Zeynep Tufekci was quoted making certain recommendations for the media which included not focusing on the perpetrator, but also not focusing on the weapons. Many articles have been published recently by the media critical of the media's own coverage and the role it plays in these types of attacks. I think the issue of the AR-15 and mass shootings definitely needs to be discussed in this article, but how is still an open question that we will probably be discussing for a while - there are too many sources available to argue for its categorical exclusion, but I think it would be more productive to focus on the academic literature and the full breadth of media sources, including those that have been critical of the media.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave: The "mainstream media" reference is supported by the citations (which are all mainstream media), and differentiates the claim as being not made by actual subject matter experts (Who are generally careful to distinguish between trademarked AR-15 rifles and AR pattern rifles, and who might point out that, for truly discerning mass shooters, the weapon of choice is the M134.) Cinteotl (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say are "have come to be widely characterized" without referencing "the mainstream media", because the characterization extends beyond the media. Many of these sources are reporting on the on the connection between generic AR-15s and mass shootings—interviewing experts, going through data, whatever—they aren't just making it up themselves. Perhaps subject matter experts disagree, but that sentence doesn't say anything about what firearms experts believe, it simply talks about what people believe in general. Also, I don't think any firearms expert would claim that a minigun is an effective weapon for a single shooter moving around on foot, unless they were just fucking around. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on the "main stream media" part. If someone is comfortable with wp:Citation merging, that long block of citations needs it. As for overall handguns vs AR-15 homicide data, I haven't ever seen that information. We do have the FBI gun crime data [[8]] which is widely reported. The 2016 data shows 7105 murders by handgun vs 374 for rifles of all types (and 3,077 of type unstated). I think this is relevant as AR-15's are clearly a subset of rifles but what subset isn't clear. I've seen several articles that report this data though not always the 2016 data (the latest set). This BBC article shows the data as a chart and cites the FBI data but doesn't offer the raw numbers[[9]]. This HuffPo article has a clear spin on the data and isn't using the 2016 data but it does cite previous years data [[10]]. NYT with similar data from around 2012 [[11]]

This article offers stats on rifles vs pistols in mass shootings from 1999-2013 (27% used rifles) [[12]]. The article does talk about AR-15s but the stats are specific to the AR-15 so this brings up a question regarding on or off topic. Personally I would be comfortable citing the FBI data but I'm posting these other articles to avoid claims of OR or SYN. I also would generally agree with people who feel that most of this (and the links I've offered) should be in the various crime articles (linked from this article) vs specifically in this article. My quick searching didn't find an article that compared the % of long guns vs % of homicides by long guns in the US (nor one that was AR-15 specifically). Springee (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As editors, it's not our job to track down and interpret the primary source statistics. We should be citing secondary sources that have analyzed the numbers. There's also no need to distinguish between "media sources" and "subject matter experts". A firearms expert is not necessarily an expert in the field of data analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, this article has become somewhat of an embarrassment, but I think it can be turned around. If some of us... just for a moment at least, could stop focusing on "criminal usage", and perhaps look at adding a well rounded section about the various, intended, legitimate uses of civilian AR-15 style rifles, (like I suggested weeks ago), I think that would go a long way towards improving this article. Any one reading this article right now would know some developmental history, comparison to it's military cousin, and as for usage, all they'd know about is the illegitimate use in mass-shootings. So, any thoughts? Nevermind. See thread below. Thanks - theWOLFchild 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Any thoughts? Yes, that you just received a very wise warning from NeilN and are already stepping out onto thin ice by returning to the very subject which got you into trouble in the first place. Stop trying to limit inclusion of the same properly sourced content you opposed, and got in trouble for so doing. The use of "AR-15 style rifles" for "mass shootings" is an extremely notable subject that must be covered in both articles. This is exactly THE hot topic from which you should recuse yourself. Otherwise a topic ban will be needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC) @BullRangifer:, I simply ask if we can revisit the issue of adding content regarding intended, legitimate use, something you have up until now completely ignored and the article is entirely lacking, and your response to is mischaracterize my comment as something completely different, threaten me, and ping an admin in the process? Seriously? And after the way your own behaviour was questioned by admins at that AE report, you want to still carry on like this? That doesn't seem very collegial, or well thought-out. Re-read my comment, in no way did I "oppose", even "try to limit" content on "mass-shooting". This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, and the very content I am suggesting is very much in line with Wikipedia's purpose. We should be including content on the intended, legitimate uses of these rifles. 500 different companies didn't manufacturer, market and sell 12 million of them to the civilian populace, just so that eight could be used in mass shootings, The other 11,999,992 rifles out there are used for activities like target shooting, competitions, prepping/collecting/self-defense, hunting, etc. We should be documenting that. Why are you so opposed to this? (and can we please stay on topic?) - theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC) I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm opposed to it. I'm not. Go for it. Just stop trying to control the addition and development of a subject you don't want included here. That's what got you into trouble, so don't return to that behavior. Move on and develop your proposed content. No one is objecting to that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC) I agree that this article could be improved by adding or expanding material about the function of this weapon, any variations, and civilian or police usage, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about the section on crime and mass shootings. Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, all you're saying is "what you're talking about is pointless, you should be talking about what I want to talk about instead." Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC) @Red Rock Canyon: Not at all, I was responding to the OP's comments, specifically their last, unfinished point; "I think the statistic you're trying to get to here is the one that says AR-15 style rifles are used in relatively few mass shootings. And.... I agree, AR-15's have been used in notable mass-shootings and I'm not opposing that content be added in regard to that. I'm just saying that, like the OP, that content could be improved, and furthermore, the article as a whole could be improved if we add information to balance it against the mass-shooting content. At no point did I say; what you're talking about is pointless, you should be talking about what I want to talk about instead. On the one hand, you say you agree with my comment, but then call it "irrelevant". That's somewhat confusing, but if you'd prefer I start a different thread for my suggestion, then I'll do that. - theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Red Rock Canyon, that's a very good summary of what's happened. According to the official warning, TWC has possibly violated 3 of the 4 parts: * not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions); * not to impede the formation of consensus by repeatedly making the same points; * to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed. Those three elements are relevant here, and TWC needs to stay far away from any behaviors which might be interpreted as violations of those warnings (and their comment did touch on all three). That's what's at stake here. While they were "on trial", the two relevant articles were improved, and they need to accept that fact and move on. The old policy-violating attitude that such content should only be in some "other" article must be dropped. We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Um, what? "POV forks"...? What on earth you talking about? I don't know how to make this any clearer; I am asking other editors their thoughts on adding content regarding the legitimate, intended uses of these rifles. That's all, nothing else. I even struck my comment above and started a new thread, so there wouldn't (hopefully) be any confusion. So, again, can we please stay on topic? Thanks - theWOLFchild 16:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC) The content you suggest belongs here. No one has suggested otherwise. About POV forks,... You have battled against inclusion of any content that mentions the connection between AR-15s and mass shootings, and have said it belongs elsewhere, not here. That is one of the attitudes involved in forbidden POV forking. That content belongs in the relevant articles, and not "somewhere else, as long as it isn't here". You don't get to banish such content. That's ownership behavior, violates NPOV, and treats that "other" preferred location as a POV fork for the content you don't want here. That content actually does belong here, so stop criticizing it or complaining about our discussing it. Don't distract from this subject because you think another subject deserves attention. The content you want sounds very good. Go for it and I'm sure many editors will help you. There is no reason why both subjects cannot be accommodated here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Wrong. What I pushed for, was balance in this, and related articles. Something that is still sorely lacking. I'm on record as voting for the inclusion of the mass-shooting content, just not to the point it violates NPOV. It would be nice if you would stop claiming otherwise, as well as attacking me every time I post here, simply because of an AE warning. I don't recall you being appointed to any kind of position to "warn" me about anything, nor tell me what I can and can't post here. I think you've even realized you've gone too far and posting a friendly "go for it" after every. single. post. of. mine will not change that. One of the AE warnings was "to focus on content, not contributors". You'd be wise to start following that yourself. So stop with the "fork" nonsense and other things I did not say, and, again... for the (third? fourth?) time, please, stay on topic. The topic I'm suggesting, in the thread below, is the addition of content regarding the legitimate, intended use of these rifles. That's it, that's all. If you wish to contribute, great. If not, please stop this persistent disruption. Thank you - theWOLFchild 17:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Balance"? One short paragraph does not create a balance problem or violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC) And like I asked at the very beginning of all this (go check if you don't believe me), will it stay at "one short paragraph"...? There will be more shootings, some will involve ARs, do we keep adding every shooting? What happens when it becomes one long paragraph? Then two? Then three? You see, I thought this was the purpose of the RfC, to determine what the community thought was appropriate in this regard. But long before the RfC was even close to finished, a small group here just went ahead and added that content anyway. Now, I'm not disputing that content. I'm just looking to add content to help balance it. - theWOLFchild 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in edit warring collapse tags here but I think the collapsed discussion started at least somewhat on topic. It started as at least semi-legitimate criticism, especially given the section title. I think the part I agree with the most is that we probably should expand the non-crime material and leave much of the crime debate and details to linked articles. POV fork was noted. I don't think that applies here since those other topics (gun crime, mass shootings etc) already exist and weren't created as POV forks from this article. In defense of those who haven't fixed it, well I haven't either. ;) Springee (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Springee, this kind of manipulation of other editors comments is just the type of "clerking" that was recently warned about, and to do so repeatedly, is indeed edit-warring and disruptive. But just the same, it's probably best we ignore the route this thread has taken, (that's what I'm gonna do). As it is, I struck my initial comment and started a new thread just below, about the addition of legitimate use information, so if you're interested in assisting with this content, please contribute to that thread. Any help would definitely be appreciated. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 03:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Legitimate use content

I think we should consider adding content regarding the intended, legitimate uses for these rifles (target shooting, competitions, prepping/collecting/self-defense, hunting, etc). Any thoughts? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Gee thanks. Anyway, here is an article from the New York Times; "‘It’s One of the Greatest Rifles’: Fans of the AR-15 Explain the Gun’s Appeal" (By Jack Healy, 20 FEB 2018), it discusses a 34 year old musician who like to take his AR-15 target shooting, a 13 year old girl who built her first AR-15 at age 9 and takes part in competitions, along with her father, and a 55 year old "extremely liberal" AR-15 owner who used his rifle for 30 years to both hunt and target-shoot. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. - ^theWOLFchild 17:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No need for the sarcasm. AGF. I really meant it. Go ahead and develop this as content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And there's no need for your continued condescension. Of course, you could AGF yourself and assume I really was thanking you for your permission to proceed, but really, if you're going to post anything, I'd rather it remain on topic (for the fifth time). - ^theWOLFchild 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The best way to move forward would be to propose a specific change, or just go ahead and boldly add it to the article yourself. I don't think anyone is really opposed to this. My only concern is that the sources presented in the previous discussion consist mainly of quotes by AR-15 users, with little to no analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I don't think a bold addition is the way to go. I would almost assuredly be reverted, start some kind dispute, maybe even a complaint to AE or ANI, so basically a waste of time. I would prefer if we could first agree on the addition of a legitimate use section, what kind of uses should or should not be included, and what sourcing would be acceptable to support this content, as that has already been an issue with that. As for sourcing, there is a sense of hypocrisy here, and I'm not directing that at anyone specific, nor am I using that as an insult, but as a perceived contradiction. When sources such as TIME, NY Times, CNBC, etc, report on the illegal use of these rifles to kill people, there is seemingly no issue with using those sources to support that information in creating content. Yet, when those very same sources report on the legitimate use of these rifles, all of sudden they're not acceptable? They even support the facts in their reporting by directly going to the legal owners who use ARs for their intended purposes; target shooting, hunting, competitions, etc., etc. Why is that not acceptable? What kind of neutral, detached, expert analysis is required here? And is that same neutral, detached, expert analysis used to support each and every instance of sourcing with the criminal use content? I don't ask that because I'm challenging the criminal use content, I'm simply looking for examples of what some people here are seeking as acceptable sourcing. - ^theWOLFchild 03:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Springee:, well, someone has hidden our comments above and I don't know if you read mine yet, so I'll again say that if you're interested in helping with the addition of some legitimate use content, it would be appreciated. This would be the place, it's the reason I created this thread, as the one above is somewhat of a mess now. It appears that the idea of such an addition is acceptable. We should determine how many different uses should be included and how much detail. Sourcing seems like it might be an issue, so any input on that would also be appreciated. This goes for anyone else who cares to help out. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Section order

User:Pharos The hatnote should be above any maintenance tags, which I fixed here [13] per WP:ORDER. You undid this here [14]. Please can you check that your edit is incorrect and redo it as I'm not fixing it again only to get undone by someone maintaining the article, regards Widefox; talk 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, fixed.--Pharos (talk) 12:56, 30 March 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. - ^theWOLFchild 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. - ^theWOLFchild 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? - ^theWOLFchild 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)

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

• 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 [[15]]. 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)

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)

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

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. - ^theWOLFchild 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. - ^theWOLFchild 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 [sic] 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: [16] 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. [17] 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)

[18] [19] (to be fair so many), [20] (also so many), [21], [22] (*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)? [23] (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) [24], 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?). [25]. 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 [26], 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[27], [28] and Dlthewave[29], [30], [31] fails to understand this policy. Editor Dlthewave [32] 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 [33] 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:

[The lead section] 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"[53] 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 [[34]]. 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.[5]" 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? - ^theWOLFchild 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 Wikipedia 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) - ^theWOLFchild 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. - ^theWOLFchild 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. - ^theWOLFchild 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)

Wikipedia: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? - ^theWOLFchild 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)

LA Times 6 of 10 claim

I know this is reopening a can of worms but the body of the article contains a 6 of 10 claim, the one discussed above. The problem is the source is wrong. The source includes the Pulse Nightclub shooting as one of the six. That shooting did not use an AR-15 type rifle and we have sources that say so. This means the LA Times claim is wrong. There is currently a NOR discussion related to this claim and supporting article. [[35]] Springee (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Even the best sources can contain occasional errors. When an error in an otherwise reliable source occurs, the best practice is to simply NOT USE the erroneous source in that context. Base our article content (whether a specific fact, sentence, paragraph or section) on other sources.

In this case, surely there are plenty of other sources that mention how many times AR-15 style weapons were used in mass shootings. (And if NOT, then our mentioning that specific factoid seems UNDUE)." Taken from the noticeboard, seems to make sense. -72bikers (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

[36], [37], [38], [http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2018/02/15/The-latest-most-serious-mass-shootings-all-have-something-in-common-the-AR-15/stories/201802140244,. Want any more?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The Pulse shooting didn't use an AR-15. Early reports incorrectly said it was based on statements by police. Since it was later found to be incorrect we have to treat the claim as incorrect.[[39]] So do we change the claim to 5 of 10 or remove the claim since it isn't correct? Springee (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which means 6 of of 10.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Niteshift36's list at NPOVN:

Business Insider also reports this [40]. CNBC says "But not all recent mass shootings involve the AR-15 or its variants. The massacre of 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, for instance, was carried out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a semi-automatic rifle that is internally distinct from the AR-15, despite its similar look." [41]. Tampa Bay Times [42]

The Pulse shooter didn't use a AR-15 thus the number is 5 of 10 not the 6 of 10 claimed by the article. Springee (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Err if a source says 7 out of 10 and one was orlando, what does that leave us? Now it may well now be 6 out of 11, I still make that most ([43].Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying some claim can't be made but the specific claim (6 of 10) based on a specific source (LA Times article) is shown to be inaccurate. I would be OK saying 5 of 10 with a note that the source incorrectly identified one rifle as AR-15 type since we have sources to support that the identification was wrong. Springee (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is also true that there have now been a couple more since that article was published (a good reason to exclude such specific claims, so why has that one not been made?).Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm mentioning this today because I realized the error after seeing it discussed at the NPOVN. The LA Times story was from February. I'm not sure if things have changed since. Off the top of my head, the Texas school shooting would be in the top 10 for loss of life but it didn't use an AR-15 type rifle. This makes for a problematic stat since it can become out of date even if the facts were correct at the time. Springee (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which I think I pointed out, as a stat it will become too obsolete. But it is clear that many RS are saying it has become all too common in such incidents. So we need language to reflect that. The more exact number was only included because of objections top a more vague wording. So lets see the Texas school shooting would not be in the top 10 deadliest, so would not affect it (not even in the top 15, maybe that tells us a lot).Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling we really aren't disagreeing but we are arguing for practice :D . I agree that enough sources, right or wrong, have raised the AR-15 scare flag so we shouldn't just remove any such mention. However, we also shouldn't cite a claim from an article that is demonstrably wrong. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives. Is there a way we can use the article to indicate the "top 10" is significant but then we compile the list ourselves? It would be simple counting which in general isn't considered SYN. Springee (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not have to [44], the problem is the source we are sing says recent mass shootings, which makes it a bit too time specific.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So we would use the LA Times list to establish the significance of saying top 10 then CNN to list the top 10 that used AR-15s? I'm OK with that (assuming CNN doesn't misidentify anything). Springee (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to not give an exact figures and just go with something tense neutral. Such as "AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in a disproportionate number of the more recent deadliest mass shootings in American history", all can be sourced to RS and remains pretty accurate until some major shift happens.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the statistic is likely to change over time, it may be best to use a date qualifier like "as of February 2018." This will still be a historically significant trend even if the pattern changes in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 19:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer something along the lines of Slatersteven's suggestion. I don't think it's a good idea to use a dated stat. Springee (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How does five out of ten equate, "AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in a disproportionate number of the more recent deadliest mass shootings in American history"? That statement does not represent the facts. The facts only support use half the time in the last ten deadliest. Or have I misread this and we are just dropping any number distinction? -72bikers (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How that statement would be made without violating OR, I can't say. However, AR-15's aren't 50% of the firearms in the US. If they are 50% of the firearms used in a subset of crimes then one could say they are over represented in that type of crime. I'm not saying I've made a good case for it, just a case. I would rather say something to the affect that AR-15's have become negatively associated with these crimes. Springee (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That is the point made in a umber of sources, that the guns are used far more often then should be (statistically) the case. They are saying it is being chosen specifically for this kind of crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2nd reversion

@Waleswatcher:, why did you revert 72bikers newly added material without comment or justification? Given the article sanctions a reversion with no justification of any sort is not acceptable. Please offer your justification for what is otherwise a disruptive edit. Springee (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you support the addition of the new material? Or are you neutral on the edit itself and you're just questioning Waleswatcher's revert since it didn't specify a reason? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The content is well sourced and brought neutrality to the criminal section. There is no policy that would support its removal or legitimate reason.

@AzureCitizen: why are you questioning editors Springee instead of @Waleswatcher:? -72bikers (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Because I want to know if Springee supports the new material. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Either way it was reliable sourced content that brought all views to this section. This is supported by policy and it is also what editors have repeatedly stated that instead of removing the criminal content that we should just bring all views to the section. What are your views on the removed content? Also can you explain your response either way that would bring light to you questioning? -72bikers (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also it appears WW has removed the combined references which are also within policy. I posted this almost a month ago [45] that I was going to do this and no one objected. -72bikers (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Would the more important question be why WW removed sourced content that brought neutrality to the article. Also the removal of the bundling that made the content more readable. Was this simply he did not like it? Was it based on some policy? Is he showing ownership of a article? -72bikers (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it for many reasons. First, it's very badly written. Second, it's a long exposition of a single source, very out of wack with the rest of that section (that is an extremely condensed summary of gazillions of sources). It's nearly as long as the rest of the section put together. Third, it in no way "brings balance" - it's just some speculation about why mass shooters might pick AR-15s, while not even mentioning the obvious reason (that you can buy them at the mall, unlike AK-47s, and they are much more powerful than handguns or shotguns, and much better at killing many people than most other rifles). Fourth, the bit about the police choosing it because it is underpowered sounds both dubious (if they want a less powerful gun, they have handguns) and is misplaced, as it has nothing to do with mass shootings. Fifth, the same applies to the part about the military - nothing to do with crime or mass shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple comments:

that you can buy them at the mall, unlike AK-47s - I don't know where you all buy your guns, but you can buy AK-47s in the US. There are semi-automatic AK-47s out there. Apparently thats what the Dallas shooter used.[46]

and they are much more powerful than handguns or shotguns - handguns, yes; shotguns, generally no.

and much better at killing many people than most other rifles - 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, just gonna leave that here.

Fourth, the bit about the police choosing it because it is underpowered sounds both dubious - the underpowered statement is referring to penetration power. As discussed heavily above, the rounds often yaw and fragment thus taking away alot of kinetic energy. Really this only means that a single bullet won't strike through two targets, or that a missed shot won't go through a wall and into somebody else. It does not mean that they are not deadly or useful.

I don't currently have an opinion on the material as I don't currently have access to a computer to take a closer look at this. I'm just issuing corrections. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call a semi-auto rifle an AK-47 (or a Colt AR-15 an M-16), but you're right, it seems other people do. Virginia Tech was handguns, not rifles. For the police thing, the main point is that it's irrelevant (to that section). Waleswatcher (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Again I think it would be prudent to mention there seems to be some misunderstanding of this article content. The content quoted from a expert in this field is clearly relevant to the article and reliable sourced. Your statement "Third, it in no way "brings balance" is puzzling. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. It cleary has a opposing view of the content right before it, thereby bringing neutrality to the section. Editors that have supported the criminal section have repeatedly stated instead of removing the content just balance it with opposing views. Is this not what I have done?

Your statement while not even mentioning the obvious reason (that you can buy them at the mall, unlike AK-47s, and they are much more powerful than handguns or shotguns, and much better at killing many people than most other rifles). It is readily available the same as a AR. It is not entirely clear what you are trying to say with this "Well, I wouldn't call a semi-auto rifle an AK-47 (or a Colt AR-15 an M-16)." A semi-auto AK-47 is not the same as (or a Colt AR-15 an M-16) it is the same as a AR-15. I would like to point out anyone could easly convert a AR-15 from 5.56 to the AK,s 7.62 round. These statements and the police and military statemenst shows a clear misunderstanding of this article content. I do not say this to be mean, just that lack of understanding is concerning and voiced as constructive criticism.

The content is not written in stone and certainly could be copy edited.

I would also like to point out you removed the bundled references, that you have not even addressed why you have removed. I gave notice a month ago on this talk page I was going to combine the long list, I think ten citations. This is supported by policy. -72bikers (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Tech was handguns, not rifles. - Yes, Waleswatcher, that's my point. The thing I was trying to illustrate is that not only can you commit an atrocity with a rifle, you can do it with a handgun. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Posted below is the content addition that was challenged on June 2nd. Perhaps interested editors could exam it more closely and provide a "support" or "oppose" comment along with their reasoning? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are two reversions here. The combination of the long chain of citations into a single citation should not have been reverted. It wasn't controversial. I will grant that Waleswatcher might have not realized the scope of what they undid so it may have been inadvertent. It would be helpful if WW would note if they meant to revert that citation grouping. As for the other material, again, it should not have been reverted without some type of justification by the reverting editor. I think there is potential for that content but as published it was putting too much emphasis on the opinion of a single interviewee. A "why these guns are used" part would be a good addition if we can find more references that actually offer some properly sourced claims as to why these guns were picked (based on solid research etc). Springee (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Reported by USA Today, a master firearms instructor, said "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle." It is believed these shooters don't know much about guns and use the AR-15 based on the rep it has received from other shootings. He also stated "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used." For example, the AK-47 is a "far more wicked gun than an AR-15." It has a larger more powerful 7.62 mm caliber and is more reliable compared to the .223 round and the standard AR-15 being used. It is suggested that shooters perhaps choose the AR-15 because it is the "weapon of choice" for police and military. But the police "choose it because it is under-powered...", "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." The military is said to be considering changing to a higher-caliber rifle partly to make their weapons more deadly.

References

• Support The reasons stated above in "June 2nd reversion". -72bikers (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NPOV. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support good balancing opinion that makes pretty obvious sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: undue weight given to an opinion by a nn firearms instructor. The material is too extensive, coming from a single source. There's also vague statements such as "It is suggested", "military is said", "It is believed". Once this is stripped out, there won't be much left. Perhaps one sentence would be acceptable, but not as proposed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You had no problems with nn surgeons expressing own views in the material discussed at RSN, so why do you have problems with this? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The content as I mentioned before is not set in stone. The man is a recognized expert in this field. Without the criminal content in this article it could be debatable for inclusion but that is not the case here. Without all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic you would be attempting to deny NPOV core policy. -72bikers (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Surgeons are experts on wound treatment while a firearms instructor is not an expert on mass shootings. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding that your issues are not valid, he is a recognized expert on firearms. How do you not get this? -72bikers (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the concept, although I agree the proposed language is relatively lengthy for a single source. I suggest condensing the text while incorporating information from supporting sources such as the three following. Thewellman (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• Oppose Excessive length, and focusses on one theory for why shooters choose this rifle, based on one source. I don't have a problem including that, but we would need to balance it with other sources and maybe other such theories (depending what the sources say). Also includes irrelevant (for the mass shootings section) information about police and military use. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: what about the citation grouping you reverted when you did your original revert? Did you mean to revert that as well? Springee (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes this should be addressed. I posted a heads up on this talk page a month ago I was going to do this [47]. -72bikers (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to grouping the citations.Waleswatcher (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well then will you fix your induced error and return it.72bikers (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

They can't, since the article is fully protected (i.e. can only be edited by admins) until this coming Sunday. But it should be noted that Waleswatcher obviously reverted without even checking what they reverted. Which is totally unacceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, let's just civilly move on without "noting" any such thing; sheesh. It appears we have unanimous consensus for the reference grouping, and restoring those after the protection expires will be uncontroversial. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

72bikers, a suggestion. Rather than bundling a technical edit like grouping cites with a highly controversial and completely unrelated change to the text all into one, just make it two separate edits, each with an appropriate, descriptive edit summary. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed then I will bundle it again after the lift. -72bikers (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

72bikers's citation bundle edit was stand alone [[48]]. The edit summary was obvious and descriptive, "combine references". Springee (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct I also posted here a month in advance [49] that I was going to do this. Should there not be a sanction for disruptive editing (WP:1RR). -72bikers (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as written - This is based on a single quote from an individual, and it's unclear who "the military" is. Generally speaking, however, it would be appropriate to cover the multitude of reasons that contribute to this being the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. –dlthewave ☎ 00:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support in some form. I agree it is too long right now. I wrote a shorter version at User:Vadder/Proposed text if you want to see my first thought as to how it could be improved. (I didn't want to confuse things by pasting another version of the text into the middle of this survey.) Vadder (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Does not look bad, maybe just a little more tweaking. I would suggest putting the rest in notes of the citation like the ones right before this content.-72bikers (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me this is (at least in part) being sued to counterpoint something we do not have here in the article about its lethality. If we trim it to just the parts about why they are choosing it (rather then why they are not) I might go for it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Springee's sourcing concerns about experts, Slatersteven's concerns about lethality being absent, and the reservations expressed below. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I won't give a simple support/oppose because I don't think it's that simple. The text as written, I would oppose but I think we seem to have two somewhat combined topics in that text. First, is why these rifles are used, the second is the damage they cause vs other guns. I think the first part we should try to get say three independent sources and summarize what they say (I don't think long quotes are needed). 72bikers has found additional sources which I think establishes the credibility of the original firearms expert. However, that is still just one opinion. If other experts say the same thing then that material should be good for a neutrally worded addition. I think I'm correct in saying most of the opposes aren't against the material in general just the current text which relies on the view of a single expert.

Second we have the wound profile. I'm not as sure how this material would fit into the article. I think that part of the discussion should be left to the discussion of the LA Times article or alternatives. Springee (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We have two experts for the content as to why used, will remove lethality as suggested. -72bikers (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also go ahead and bundle refs as agreed upon. -72bikers (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the text here forst.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So we say "we do not want it to say anything about lethality" and you include a line about that and claim to have addressed our concearns?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Comment: I've read the articles which quote the interviewee in question (a firearms instructor named Dean Haven who owns a gun shop called The Gun Experts). The new content, which is eight sentences in length, is based on Haven being quoted in USA Today, expressing his opinion that AR-15 style rifles are popular in mass shooting events because of copycatting and that compared to an AK-47, they are far less dangerous; in support of this, he asserts that the AK-47 has "larger more powerful 7.62 caliber and is more reliable." Wikipedia's own article on the subject, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, points out numerous ways in which an AR-15 type 5.56 rifle is superior. According to our own article, the AR-15 is ergonomically better and easier to handle; it weighs less; it has less recoil; you can change magazines easier and faster; you can carry twice as many rounds because they weigh less (Ten loaded 30-round AK-47 magazines weighs 21.2 lbs, Twenty loaded 30-round AR-15 magazines weighs 21.6 lbs); it has a better trigger mechanism; it is more accurate; it has greater effective range; it has greater hit probability; its rounds have greater velocity. While Mr. Haven says the 7.62 round would do more damage due to it being larger, its not hard to find others that disagree. See this article by a former special forces doctor, "I would rather be shot with an AK-47 than an M4." Or for something more scholarly, see this medical article about wounding effects from firing 7.62 and 5.56 rounds into 130 cadaver dogs, which concluded that the injuries caused by 5.56 were more severe than those caused by 7.62. Yet Mr. Haven opines that an AK-47 is "far more wicked" than the AR-15? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You do realized you did not directly contradict the statements from a recognized expert or disprove common knowledge. the AK is well know to be highly reliable because of its loose tolerances and the AR is well known for being unreliable because of its tight tolerances. The 7.62 is also well know for its penetrating power, and do I really have to point out a 30 caliber round is much bigger than a 22 caliber round. I believe the issues of editors not comprehending the article content is still being seen here, not being mean just constructive criticism. -72bikers (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A firearms instructor is not a "recognised expert" on mass shootings, nor is an anonymous person on the internet. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You would attempt to attest that a recognized firearm expert is not relevant to firearm content. He is not attempting to opine why they would do these crimes. He is only talking about the weapons. -72bikers (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your opinions are yours to have. He is not a recognized expert on mass shootings; how do you not get this? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither is any reporter you would cite on here, but you still do it. The "special forces doctor" may be an expert in medicine, but he is only speaking about his personal observations, making his view anecdotal. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

He's one guy with an opinion. Not to say his opinion can't be mentioned, but if we're going to do so we need to look for other sources on the motivation for choosing these rifles. Furthermore, the stuff about the police and military is completely off-topic for that section. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the mass murderers are similarly one guy with an opinion. It is dismaying that so many are more willing to publicize opinions stated with a gun, rather than words. Thewellman (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor K.e.coffman the repetition of your claims would lead me to believe you are assuming if you say something long enough it will magically make it fact. The man is a recognized expert on firearms. He is only speaking about firearms as it relates to this content. I think at this point it is moot to engage you in this nonsensical passive-aggressive behavior. WW if you fail to see content relevance, your opinion is noted. -72bikers (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of his level of expertise, this is just one person's opinion. It's a minority viewpoint at best unless we can find more sources to support the statement. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two citations from a reliable source, I assume you just did not notice that. You are not denying that the source is reliable correct?

Here is some policy "...all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." that fully supports the inclusion of the content. It also looks like most editors agree with this also. -72bikers (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The two citations are both USAToday articles which quote the same individual. Do you consider this to be a "significant view?" –dlthewave ☎ 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the sourcing concerns. First, I haven't seen evidence presented that this person is (or isn't) qualified to make the statements USA Today is reporting. If we can find a secondary source that says the person is a voice with weight in the area that would help. For example Massad Ayoob would be a "firearms instructor" who's opinions would carry weight (not sure if Ayoob has commented in this area). Also, even if the person is clearly qualified to offer an opinion we should try to find a range of opinions. I also think the text in question was too long given how much text we are devoting to mass shootings in general in this article. So, if that person does have the needed credentials I would suggest just one or two sentences and skipping some of the other material. I know, it seems odd that I'm basically agreeing with a number of editors whom I normally don't agree with! :D Anyway, the general idea for the material was good but it just wasn't ready to come out of the oven yet. Let's try to answer some of the questions that have been raised, add some additional sources and see if we can agree on say 2-3 sentences to add to the article. Springee (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor Thewellman has provide supporting independent sources. Proof the man is a recognized expert, ABC news quotes former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen said. “Most police departments carry it; our military carries a militarized version of it. In some mass shootings, the shooter had low knowledge of firearms. They just grabbed what they know, and that’s the AR-15.” "Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.

I believe the fact he was a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a expert, he would be a excellent reliable source as to why the police use this weapon.

The NRA says the AR-15 has “soared in popularity” because it is “customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate” and “can be used in sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations.” Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder -- echoed Hazen's comments . Blair doesn’t believe those are the reasons mass shooters are choosing the AR-15, though. “I don’t see a lot of customization happening with the guns mass shooters use. They’re pretty much using the stock AR which is easy to operate and straightforward,” Blair said..

CNBC posted the USA Today article also [50].

So I presume we can put this to rest. -72bikers (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To date, 5 support and 3 oppose.

With the added reference the content would look something like this. Quoted expert Dean Hazen said, "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle, it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." Perhaps they choose the AR-15 based on the reputation it has received from other shootings or that it is the "weapon of choice" for police. But the police "choose it because it is under-powered...", "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments.

It would be very odd to include some comment refuting the lethality claim, if we do not also include the claim of lethality. It is going to cause the reader to ask "why are they saying it does not cause nasty wounds, why are they saying that?".Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Brady campaign source

Regarding the assertion that the Brady campaign reference is a "self-published source", wiki's policy reads as follows: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Nothing in that applies to a press release by an organization. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your edit warring. The Brady Campaign is an advocacy organization, not a media source nor a subject matter expert. The claim was self published and controversial (see the debates related to the claim) as such we should only source it to reliable sources. Your restoration is against WP:RS. Springee (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WW instead of a edit war why not take your perceived interpretation to the noticeboard. -72bikers (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the removal of a source once is hardly "edit warring". In fact, 72bikers your revert of my revert violates the remedies on this page. That's the second time you've done that in the last few days. Be careful!Waleswatcher (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WW I believe I have asked you not to post on my talk page. Please leave any opinions on the relevant article talk page, Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You may have, but see here. This was a legitimate warning - your edit clearly violated the rules here and could get you blocked (although I see you've reverted yourself, which is good). Waleswatcher (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WW, on what grounds did you reverse my removal of a self published source being used to support a controversial claim? Under the circumstances 72's edit was a violation of the article sanctions but 72 also realized this and self reverted. No issue there and no reason for your threat. Now we have policy and at least two editors who say get rid of the material. Why do you think it should stay despite being self published material used to support a controversial claim? Springee (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: press releases are specifically identified as an example of a self-published source in WP:SPS, which is policy:

Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases....

The description as such seems pretty straightforward to me. Personally, I think the source itself is fine (not great, but fine), but as of now it also includes a longish quote in the citation that seems like overkill and is bloating an already ugly References section. VQuakr (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Being an advocacy organisation is not a reason for them to not be used, as long as we do not state what they say are facts (which we do not). The quotes are as different matter, and I do jot see why any of the sources have long quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That logic opens up using the NRA's self published statements as well. I got a lot of pushback for citing statements made by the NRA and published by the organization. Why is this different? Would you object to adding a self published counter statement issues by the NRA? 11:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No, and do not recall ever saying that could not be used as a source for their opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why are you ok using the Brady Campaign as a source for a contested claim? Striking that, I think I miss understood your reply. Springee (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Brady Campaign is as biased as the NRA is, although at the opposite end of the spectrum from the NRA, so neither of those organisations should be used as a source here, for anything, unless the views of both of them are presented in the same section. Since both of them are US only organisations, and their views thus are of little or no interest to international readers, both of them also belong only in articles about US gun control politics, not in technical articles about guns. And in case someone doesn't understand the difference between articles about US gun politics and technical articles about guns, Assault weapon is an article about US gun politics, since it deals with a US political/legal term, while Assault rifle, AR-15 style rifle, Colt AR-15 and similar are technical articles about guns. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a technical article. Wikipedia is written for a general audience and covers all significant aspects of a subject, including any related political issues. It happens that the American gun control debate appears prominently in sources, which is reflected in the article, but we do also mention events in Australia. (By your logic, should we also exclude information about manufactures that only operate in one country?)

We don't necessarily need to "cover both sides of the argument " within each section, only within the article. Often the "criticism " or "controversy " section is balanced by other, overwhelmingly positive viewpoints elsewhere in the article. If you believe that a certain viewpoint is underrepresented, than please work to add that viewpoint instead of removing opposing viewpoints. This is a work in progress that may not be perfectly balanced at any particular point in time. –dlthewave ☎ 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

a) Non-US readers shouldn't have to sift through walls of text about US-only gun politics to find technical information, so if you feel that kind of information is needed, create separate articles about that aspect of specific types of guns, and b) WP:NPOV requires all articles to be neutral, and represent "... fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", so if we include one utterly biased view from the anti-gun lobby we should also include an equally biased opposite view from the gun-lobby. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thats content not sources, and half the lead is taken up with non specification information. Sales are nothing to do with how it works, nor has the AWB (which is in the lead but not even discussed in the body).Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Que? "Content not sources", care to explain? Content is supposed to reflect what the sources say, nothing else, so I can't see a clear separation between the two. I would support the creation of a separate article named "Gun politics and AR-15 style rifles", or similar, and suggest that US sales figures and similar are included there, not in the technical article about AR-15 style rifles. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The question is not about whether the content should be here, but just is the BC a reliable source for it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Per WP:NPOV (and it's subsection WP:UNDUE) the question about whether material should be included at all or not always comes first, regardless of how good/reliable the sources are. Which is why it was made abundantly clear by multiple participants in the recent discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard that whatever the outcome there was, it would not override the outcome of discussions about NPOV/UNDUE on the talk page of each article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, until I know what we are discussing I support the version of the page before the 12th June removals (and nothing else, including anything about other sources). So I want to ask now, what am I being asked, what is the qeuastion?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating the claim the Brady reference was supporting. We have enough other sources making the claim. I'm only saying we should remove the Brady Campaign as a supporting reference (ie no change to the text). The reason for removing the BC is that it's a self published source being used to support a controversial claim. Per WP:RS and the other links mentioned we should avoid using WP:SPS for controversial claims and press releases are considered self published [[51]]. Again, this doesn't change the text of the article. Springee (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough now. They are not being used to support a claim but as an example of someone making it. As I said I have no issue with the NRA being used as a source for "and some think this".Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 14 June 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

Some civilians use AR-15 style rifles in Project Appleseed marksmanship training at 500 yards (460 m) distances. 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. AR-15 style rifles dominate Camp Perry and 600-yard competitive shooting event; and they've enhanced the popularity of 3-Gun practical shooting and carbine-precision rifle shoots. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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 [[52]] 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)

Is project Appleseed so important it needs its own mention? is it the only marksmanship course/scheme in the USA?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Appleseed Project is one of the more active nationwide examples of the United States government-chartered Civilian Marksmanship Program to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military. Thewellman (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So no then it is not unique.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

AR

So why is the fact that AR means Armalite Rifle not suitable for the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Back in 1956, the "AR" from the original Stoner design indeed meant ArmaLite Rifle-15 (as the very first sentence of the article body explains). When ArmaLite went out of business, Colt bought the rights, made changes, and produced military and civilian versions for sale. With regard to their new semi-automatic only civilian version, Colt trademarked it as the "AR-15" (not as the "ArmaLite Rifle-15"); see trademark details here. All semi-automatic civilian AR-15 style rifles are descended from the Colt semi-automatic version trademarked as the AR-15, not the ArmaLite Rifle-15 fully automatic version which ceased production in the 1950's. So while its important to explain in the article body how the original rifle was called the "ArmaLite Rifle-15," it is incorrect to imply in the lead that "AR-15" still means "ArmaLite Rifle-15" for the Colt AR-15 & AR-15 clones in circulation today. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, this could have been said in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)