Talk:AR-15–style rifle/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Citation overkill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it really quite perfectly proves my point.

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

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

• Support - As I said in my first comment on this thread: [t]hree high quality sources is enough for this statement. The only question is: which three? I'll put forth the NYT, ABC and USA Today articles as my choice for the three. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduced citations in cite 61

Support

• It is clear there are too many, and as we have assurances this will not be misused.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support reduction to 3 per above discussion. If the statement is questioned we can revisit this discussion and the original discussion. Springee (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• There is no reason to have that many citations. So I support trimming them. Afootpluto (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• As stated above already, support reduction to 3 per above discussion. -72bikers (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Trim down to 3 citations. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support reducing to 3 per Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Reduced citation quotes

Support

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

Oppose

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

Are these the "specific reasons" or the "as to what or where" for removing quotes?[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12].

Extended content

More generally, if we're going to have this much material discussing shooters'motivations for choosing the ar-15, we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion. We should add a paragraph describing why the ar-15 is so lethal. That is both more pertinent and more fact-based then speculations about motivation. Waleswatcher (talk) Not again? how many times. Some claim the gun is not very lethal, others claim (or maybe they are the same) that the gun is not the most deadly. Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding. Thus it is not simply as black and white as you present it. If we list why it is chosen we have the list all the supposed reasons.Slatersteven (talk) Fully agreed. I've removed the quotes 72bikers added. Waleswatcher (talk) No I excluded it based upon the fact we do not discus the other side of that debate... Slatersteven (talk) We either have material about the debate about the guns effectiveness (or lack of it) or we do not. What we do not do is put one side of an argument. Hell it even says the very thing you claim you were not trying to say, that the gun is not as dangerous as others.Slatersteven (talk) And who are these "experts" (for example why is a criminologist an expert but not a medical professional?)) (as I also said in the lethality debate) those "experts" were responding to claims made about the gun, thus it seems odd that if to not include what they choose to respond to.Slatersteven (talk) ..Some claim the gun is not very lethal, others claim (or maybe they are the same) that the gun is not the most deadly. Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding. Thus it is not simply as black and white as you present it. If we list why it is chosen we have the list all the supposed reasons.Slatersteven (talk) And RS saying they are experts does not make them so, being recognized as such by some form of formal recognition does. So are you saying that a newspaper would ask for a quote about guns from people they do not think are authoritative (yes that includes the Brady Campaign). Are you really saying that as long as an RS call them an expert then we can quote them as one? What about its members if they are experts then surely it must have expertise [13], or is it only the press that get to assign expertise? Slatersteven lets have both sides of why these guns are being used. Lets have reference to their accuracy And lets not have this attitude that says who are and are not experts based upon what an interviewing sources calls them If someones views are given as authoritative then there is no reason to reject them just because you do not think they are an expert.Slatersteven (talk) We have "experts" (such as medical professionals) saying these weapons are unusually dangerous, thus if we include the claim they are not we must include the claim they are. And again, why ids the Brady campaign not an expert? So what makes him not an expert? Slatersteven (talk) I am saying (Christ how many times) that it does not matter where we discus it if we put one sides view that these guns ate not significantly more dangerous then others we must also put the other side of the debate (even if they are "only" medical experts. What about this confuses you?Slatersteven (talk) I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts". "alleged "experts" do not get special notice here on Wikipedia, no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

72bikers, please learn the following: How to indent and format your comments properly (the "show preview" button helps). Not to post walls of text on talk pages. Once you master those two, you'll have an easier time constructively collaborating with other editors. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Waleswatcher will you reply to issues raised? Your vote stated "I object to removing quotes from cites in general in this article. In specific cases I might support it, but no specific suggestion has been made here." You clearly recently removed a quote from a cite in the article as seen below[13]. Is this the "specific cases" you speak of? Content that simple elaborates more on who the experts are and slightly expands on the copycat view. You only stated you had previously stated your reason for removal "I've explained in detail at least three times." All I see is this "More generally, if we're going to have this much material discussing shooters'motivations for choosing the ar-15, we need to balance it with other sources, and by extending the discussion. We should add a paragraph describing why the ar-15 is so lethal. That is both more pertinent and more fact-based then speculations about motivation. Waleswatcher (talk)" And your support of "Not again? how many times. Some claim the gun is not very lethal, others claim (or maybe they are the same) that the gun is not the most deadly. Others claim it is extremely effective as a killing machine (not just because of its caliber, but other features as well), and/or that it it unusually effective at causing severe wounding. Thus it is not simply as black and white as you present it. If we list why it is chosen we have the list all the supposed reasons.Slatersteven (talk)" You are clearly stating no opposing view may be included into the article unless substantial content from your views are included. What policy or guideline supports this? I already explained that several times. Waleswatcher (talk) 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) I'm simply disputing the assertion you made: wound characteristics depend on which cartridge/caliber has been used, not on what type of weapon that has been used. On the contrary, wound characteristics depend on cartridge/caliber and weapon type. Also, please be careful about moving other people's comments around - you messed up the formatting. Waleswatcher (talk) it does not depend on weapon type since all of the different kinds of weapons I listed can have barrels that are... If you can't see the problem with that, I can't help you.Waleswatcher (talk) Not all weapons can have barrels of any given length, and, as you now admit, the barrel length affects the wound. Therefore, it's false to say what you said. That will be my last comment on this issue. Waleswatcher (talk) 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). Waleswatcher (talk) Comments like these show a lack of even a basic understanding of this article content. Perhaps if you could master this, you'll have an easier time constructively collaborating with other editors. Along with (I already explained ) what appears to be a way of being dismissive. Perhaps reply to other editors would be helpful. Also a habit of misunderstanding format. Since you raised this subject I will look at the constructive criticism raised and perhaps you would do the same. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I did not reply to the middle of your comment, you either made separate comments , either that or read wp:indent You have been told multiple times your inability to indent makes knowing who you are replying to, or when your content ends, difficult. Which added to your walls of text makes discussion with you difficult and hard to follow. The above is a prefect example. Now I have explained why I am voting oppose you, you, have not provided a valid reason for me to change that vote (and no asking if i support the removal of a quote that was removed weeks ago does not count, and is ...well I will leave it at that.). I am going to end with this, until you learn to indent properly and stop pasting walls of quotes I will oppose any addition or subtraction made by you on the grounds I have no idea what you are suggesting. I am not going to do your work for you, learn to communicate in a clear and concise way that does not cause confusion (and I have to assume at this point this is all very deliberate).Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose any addition or removal of quotes until I know what we are disusing and who the hell is being replied to. I have said this before and this is my last word. I will also oppose any suggestion accompanied by capitalization or bolding, I can read it does not need emphasis. If you are going to be discourteous I am going to assume whatever you say is equally valueless, valid points stand on their own merits.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven You were specifically asked about this quote being removed and denied from the article, content that simple elaborates more on who the experts are and slightly expands on the copycat view. (...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.”) Why do you oppose not removing quotes that simply repeat each other and repeat the article content, but support the removal of quotes actually helpful to the readers? -72bikers (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removing quotes. In this case it is helpful to include the specific quote that supports the content without combing through the source. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave I will ask you the same question as the other two opposing editors who fail to discuss there views when asked questions. It would appear they are unable to provide legitimate reasons for there views.

You are in support of keeping the quotes in the 61 citation saying "In this case it is helpful to include the specific quote that supports the content". Those 3 quotes (one very extended) provide nothing, all they do is simply repeat each other and repeat the article content "weapon of choice for mass shooters". All this does is create redundant content. It also reads as more overkill and bombardment "an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject". How is this legitimately helpful?

All the while a cite quote that actually helps the readers "...former SWAT team member and gun expert Dean Hazen... Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof." Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing.” by providing the experts credentials and to briefly expand on the copycat view. This also provides the readers with context and understanding of weapon choice.

This is removed and denied from the article but redundancies are kept. -72bikers (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

@72bikers: please revert your refactoring of other users' comments, fix your indenting, and review WP:BLUDGEON. VQuakr (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Please note 72 bikers has moved one of my comments so it appears I was replying to a post I did not reply to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC) SS I did not touch your statement I simply restored my response to WW that you incorrectly disrupted. Your assessment is incorrect and you placed a statement in between WW addressing me and my reply to him. Perhaps you should go back to talk page guidelines and read up on correct talk page actions and stop falsely accusing other of wrong doing and being discourteous based on your misunderstandings. I believe I have asked you to not post on my talk page which you have now done. Your warnings are not legitimate based on your misunderstandings, this is exactly why you were politely asked to not post there based on you inability to discern legit reasons. -72bikers (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I did not, I posted it after the reply that was indented as a reply. If your reply below my response was meant as a reply to the post by WW above it you incorrectly indented it in a way that leads to confusion (which more then one user has told you is an issue more then once, over more then a month). Now I am asking you (and telling you) one last time. I am not going to try and second guess who you are replying to. If you do not correctly indent your comments I will assume they are correctly indented and post accordingly. So either learn to indent replies correctly or stop moving users comments. The next time you do this I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC) You are mistaken my reply to WW [14]. Your comment clearly posted inbetween WW comment to me and my reply to him [15] Ironically stating you did not do something similar as you did here previously "I did not reply to the middle of your comment". Perhaps some advice might be helpful, look for signatures for where one editor starts and stops. On another note, if you perceive any wrongdoing, please do take it to a noticeboard and have it addressed that should not be allowed to persist. -72bikers (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC) No, your comment was not indented as a reply to WW (you have been told this and pointed to the correct MOS, more then once). Signatures do not tell me who it was a reply to, but who it was a response from. I have said what I will do should this happen again, I am giving you a fair warning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC) This is all off topic and seems like you are more interested in this than actually having a discussion of article content. Not sure how you do not know that your opinions are not policies that can be violated, with your warnings? The practice of indenting is a guideline to follow "Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you "can" (not must) place your response directly below it. Use a colon (:) to indent your message to create a threaded message." This is not a policy of which there would be any violation. One could argue repeated misspellings and incouhernt statement are more of a hindrance to communication than simply forgetting a colon. My comment started "Waleswatcher will you reply to issues raised?" right after his statment directed to me "Once you master those two, you'll have an easier time constructively collaborating with other editors. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk)". To imply you did not understand I find questionable. I again will point out to you I did not touch your statement, I simply moved my comments back to were they were and left your statement untouched. -72bikers (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

Summary

I'm going to try to close this out. I think we have agreement regarding reducing the number of sources in citation 61. As for embedded quotes we don't have consensus to remove them en-mass and they should be address on a case by case basis.

I would like to propose removing the quotes in citation 61. Our intent was to reduce the bulk of text that shows up when people hover over the link. I think this would help. Springee (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that none of the individual quotes are significantly longer then any of the other quotes we have. The issue now is not length of quotes, but three cites being lumped together. It would not be as bad if they were seperated out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Springee I agree with your assessment.Slatersteven were exactly is the logic in keeping 3 quotes (one very extended) that simply just repeats each other and just repeats the article content "weapon of choice for mass shooters". All this does is create redundant content. It also reads as more overkill and bombardment. And now you would also attempt to expand and restore the clutter that was removed. All the while not providing any logical explanation of these actions. -72bikers (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Where did I say I wanted anything restored? The only user asking here to add anything is you. And none of this address what I said, that none of these quotes seem significantly longer then any of the other quotes we have in the same section. The only reason it takes up so much space is that they are all jumbled in one cite.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your perception would appear to be based on misunderstanding, perhaps if you take a step back (no one thinks clearly when angered) you would be able to follow along. -72bikers (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"And now you would also attempt to expand and restore the clutter that was removed", how did I misunderstand that as saying that I am trying to restore removed content?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Regarding your question

Waleswatcher - I tried doing this - minus the "leading trauma surgeon and retired captain" bit - but it creates its own problem. Dr. Rhee isn't the source for the quotes in the first half of the sentence, the NRA and the Brady Campaign (I think that's who the second quote is attributed to in the article) are. If he was, I'd have just put Dr. Rhee in at the start of the sentence without asking. I'd avoid putting any more quotes in citations since its causing problems elsewhere, and will probably cause problems here. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the last thing we need is more quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, your solution looks good to me. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a solution. Sure it attributes the third quote to the right person, but what you've written is synthesis. Because it is "customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate" and "can basically shoot as quickly as you can pull the trigger", Trauma surgeon Dr. Peter Rhee regards the AR-15 as "a perfect killing machine". Ok, simple: because of x, Rhee says y. Makes sense. Except, Rhee didnt say x, nor is x the reason why Rhee says y. Rhee says y because Its tiny bullets ... travel nearly three times the speed of sound. As the bullet strikes the body, the payload of kinetic energy rips open a cavity inside the flesh – essentially inert space – which collapses back on itself, destroying inelastic tissue, including nerves, blood vessels and vital organs. Do you see the problem? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst sysnthy it is also what hunters are saying about it, its ability to fire accurately and rapidly. The only difference is the targets they are talking about. Thus I am not sure that particular claim really needs attribution, it is clear the view this weapon fires accurately and rapidly is not just used in a negative context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Not what I meant. Each individual statement is fine. However, the statements had been fused (synthesis of multiple sources) and attributed to a person to form a conclusion (because x, therefore y) which is not supported by either source (and particularly not by the cited individual). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the opinion of the trauma surgeon. The doctor isn't a subject matter expert in firearms nor an otherwise noted source of opinions. The quote is provocative without substance which makes is questionable per NPOV. As is often pointed out, NPOV doesn't mean we can't use biased sources but it does mean we as authors must strive to present information in a neutral fashion. Putting a provocative opinion quote from a non-notable source into the article is not in line with NPOV. Springee (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Did we not go over all this not too long ago? Anyone else get a sense of déjà vu? -72bikers (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks a lot like the discussion we had here [[16]] Springee (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the non-notable opinion of Peter M. Rhee. The guy who operated on Gabby Giffords and attended to the other shooting victims of the 2011 Tucson mass shooting,[17] who attended a state of the union address with the then first lady, and who visited the white house... is a non-notable opinion? It's a POV opinion for sure, but it's not non-notable. The result of the wound effects RfC was that the proposed text gave very undue weight to a single non-MEDRS source. There was also mention of NPOV. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

An d I have found this [[18]] "Andrew Somerset, an expert on American gun culture, previously told Global News that these features, along with the significant damage it can inflict, also make the AR-15 popular with violent criminals" (note an "expert"), these listed above his comment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues

The recent spate of editing in the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section has introduced some problems:

• It has been suggested this is because the AR-15 being of modular construction enables it to be adaptable and customizable. - What has been suggested? This sentence doesn't make a point, and the citation that WW introduced has been removed.
• Its base 22 caliber being small and direct gas impingement operating system support accuracy but at the cost of reliability because of operating system. As well as the fact that every trigger pull semi-auto weapons fire one round. This has (however) been disputed as AR-15s are not the only rifles with these characteristics - These two sentences are now also uncited.

Regards, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well the passage now now been rewitren to explain what point was being made, and the passage was cited. And as you said it was cited but the cote had been removed with no explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the citation. Also, you are correct, the old revision said "specific merits". Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added some more context, it was referring to the paragraph above, now it makes it more clear.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically it is still cited, the USA today cite (65) contains the material in question.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I found it. For the record: The NRA said "the AR-15 has soared in popularity" because it's "customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate." It is also versatile and can be used for "sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations," the NRA said, adding the ability to "personalize" so many of the rifle's components "is one of the things that makes it so unique. The "what has been suggested" is its popularity. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is also a quote from the Brady campaign, and the expert opinions are direct rebuttals of the claims. It is cleat form context they are rebutting the idea that these weapons are used for their technical characteristics. Of course much depends on whether or not the The Brady Campaign tare saying popularity with mass shooters or the general public. And (as I say above) the con text of all the articles points to the former. They are about why the guns are so frequently used.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The USA today article is talking about both popularity with the general public and with mass shooters. That much is clear from The National Rifle Association has called the AR-15 — the semi-automatic, civilian version of the military’s M-16 — the "most popular rifle in America" and estimates Americans own more than 8 million of them. There are not 8 million mass shooters in the U.S. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

True but the experts are clearly responding to something, and it comes after the Brady campaign give their opinion. I suspect what we have here are the answers but not the questions. But I agree that we cannot tell what anyone was responding to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

How do your theories make any sense? It has become abundantly clear your theory of responding to something has been your repeated attempts to include the wound content or something similar (you have openly stated this). You have not established any consensus that would agree with your opinion. What they are responding to is the reporter asking them there views on mass murder. They are not responding to some claim you find represents some issue that needs to be included. Hazon does not make any indication he is responding to what the Brady campaign says, there is no evidence that supports your opinion.

"It has been suggested that one reason for its use in mass shootings is the fact it can take high capacity magazines, but it has been said that other guns on the market also have this feature.[65] Who says this? The Brady Campaign. This is just an opinion of an advocacy group. They are not recognized as experts on firearms nor mass murder. There is no noteworthiness to this statement.

"It has also been suggested that whilst there may be similar guns on the market the ar-15 is more "user-friendly" as well as being more affordable."|66 There is no noteworthiness to this statement, it is also incorrect, AK's can be found for similar prices to the AR. You also seem to be trying to use it as a reason of choice in a mass shooting and the source does not imply that. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Our standard is notable opinions, it is clear they are noted, someone noted them. It is an RS, we say what RS say. Now if you can find a source that disputes this claim, go ahead and use it. The fact is that there are many opinions as to why these guns are chosen for use in this kind of attack, and we do not reject notable opinions just because they have not been called (by newspapers, the same ones who considered the Brady campaigns opinions notable) experts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely you jest. You would try to claim "It is an RS, we say what RS say." Really? I suppose that only applies to something you find favorable. Because I can show you numerous statements by you contradicting this. Shall I show you? -72bikers (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead but be warned, misrepresenting what users say is a policy violation. Be warned.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SS your comment "It is an RS, we say what RS say" seems to contradict "no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk) 20 July 2018" "I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts". "alleged "experts" do not get special notice here on Wikipedia, no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk) 20 July 2018" just two of many. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You do understand what notable means? Just because a source published something does not make every statement in the source notable or relevant (policy). Because again I can show you your own statements that would contradict what you now claim. -72bikers (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Showing your own words contradicting you is no policy violations. Please do not make a false statement in what looks like an attempt to scare. Just admit you are wrong. -72bikers (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Except I do not contradict myself, one is an RS issue the other is a balance issue (as you can tell if you read the full quote) [[19]]. I never said it was not notebale or relevant I said "I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts".",. I never say you cannot use them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You would also appear to be going back to your statements that the recognized experts are not experts and would also appear to now be saying the Brady Campaign are experts on guns and mass murder. I would point out this is a weak case with no support. If this is the base of your argument it would appear this view does not hold water . -72bikers (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No I said the Brady campaign were notable, not that they were experts. Nor do I go back on "statements that the recognized experts are not experts" I never said they were not ex-pets I said there is no standard by which to judge such a claim, thus it is just a claim made by the media.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also point out you were quick to accept "a perfect killing machine" stating lethality but choose to deny just the mention of the word lethality, not saying something was overly lethal nor stating it lacked lethality. A clear case of double standards that cannot be easily dismissed . -72bikers (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected the source does imply shooters choosing because of low price. But the AK can be found for similar prices as the AR (so claim false). -72bikers (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Like most things that are popular, sources attribute its popularity to a number of factors. Although there may be cheaper semi-automatic rifles on the market, it is the combination of accuracy, reliability, customizability, etc. at a reasonable price that makes it popular. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So do you have a source saying this, at this time this is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy on inclusion 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 new."

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) 18:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dwave Your explanation does not hold water for a number of reasons. The AR is not more reliable than the AK this is common knowledge. Are you even aware of what the forward assist is for on an AR. Customizability is not a factor of selecting either the majority just used stock AR's and as experts stated "They believe mass shooters generally don't know much about guns."

I am still waiting for your response above "you are in support of keeping the quotes in the 61 citation saying "In this case it is helpful to include the specific quote that supports the content". Those 3 quotes (one very extended) provide nothing, all they do is simply repeat each other and repeat the article content "weapon of choice for mass shooters". All this does is create redundant content. It also reads as more overkill and bombardment "an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject". How is this legitimately helpful?" -72bikers (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SS "no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk) 20 July 2018 I said it is a NPOV violation to give only one sides in a dispute version of "facts". "alleged "experts" do not get special notice here on Wikipedia, no policy says that views are given weight due to the media saying someone is an expert... Slatersteven (talk) 20 July 2018"

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Aug 20th edits

I've restored material removed here [[20]]. The inclusion of the material as restored reflects a consensus that has been in place for over a month and was achieved after considerable debate. The material was removed without talk page discussion. It has now been restored. Springee (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

What is in the article was placed there by Admin Drmies [21] July 3, and had a talk page consensus. -72bikers (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OR

Will eds please read wp:or, if the source does not explicitly say it neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to better explain why you feel the material was OR. That also applies to failed verification tag. The MJ data is raw data but it also supports the statements in the second source thus I don't see the concern. The third source again says that handguns are the primary weapons in mass shootings so it also supports the wiki article claim. Springee (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It hinges on the fact that there is (in the sources I taged) no mention of what they define as a mass shooting as far as I can tell (n fact as far as I can tell they do not have anything to say about mass shootings). Thus whether or not they give any exact numbers is open to how the reader defines mass shooting (and there is no clear cut definition [[22]]). Thus this is OR, it is 72bikers interpretation of what constitutes as mass shooting. As to the third source, it is talking about how prevalent mass shootings are, I can find nothing that talks about the choice of guns of mass shooters (though I can find quote about mass murderers, which is not quote the same thing not all mass murderers are mass shooters)) a quote would be nice if I am missing it. Thus is fails verification.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point regarding the OR. I know many sources have cited the MJ data set when making claims but perhaps we shouldn't cite it unless one of the reference sources cites it. The 3rd source seems a very good fit to me. Consider the following passage from the 3rd source:

And indeed, most mass murderers don't use assault weapons. They use – they use semi-automatic handguns. That's the most common weapon, but not what would be declared an assault weapon and banned.

This is a claim by the expert named in our Wikipedia article. Springee (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And as I pointed out it says mass murderers, not mass shooters, which then takes us back to what is a mass shooting. I would point out we already say that hand guns are the most common weapon in crime, and that is where any addition material should go related to this, the first line. But inclusion of this needs major rewrite as only an outdated survey supports the text as written.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are stretching that one. The context of the third article is very clear since it is talking about mass shootings. Remember these are quotes from a live interview, not written statements. It would be stretch to assume when he says "mass murders" in the interview he changed from the context of "mass shootings" to some context that includes say serial killers. I won't argue that the text can use cleaning but the claim that handguns are the primary weapon used in mass shootings is supported by the third reference. Springee (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is looking like if we say this we have to have the other side (which not shown) scenario and just rhetorical nonsense. -72bikers (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think kit is a stretch, I think given the context (there is no clear cut definition of mass shooting) he is saying exactly what he means, it is clear he both stumbles over and chooses his words. He was asked "Did that have any effect one way or the other on these shootings?" His response was not to say "no" it was to say "not exactly". I also note he says "assault weapons", not A-15s or even Semi-auto rifles. So even here it does not support the text, this article is not about Assault weapons.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Because he says "handgun" vs "Assault Weapon" we can reasonably infer that all AR-15's would be counted in the AW bucket and not the handgun bucket. Your objection here is very weak. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct there is no clear cut definition but by that logic (taken to an unreasonable extreme) we can drop the whole section from the article since we don't know what definition of mass shooting was used in each article we've quoted. An expert (Fox) says handguns are the primary weapon of mass shooters. That is by all reasonable measure sufficient for the claim made in the article unless we have a second source that challenges that claim. We don't. Springee (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No What we do is reflect accurately what RS actually say. That is why we need to be very accurate, because there is no clear cut definition. Fox does not say mass shooters, he says mass murderers, he does not say AR-15 he says assault weapons. This (even if we include this source) that section would need a total rewrite (and expanding to a paragraph) to accurately reflect what the sources are actually saying (which we must do given the lack of clarity).Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven your changes to the verified RS content has not been shown to have any legitimate reason or explanation. With your changes I assume your are attesting to the validity of the percentages of weapons used.

A RS said that handguns are the most common mass shooting weapon. The context of mass shooting vs mass murder with non-firearms was very clear since the expert said A vs B and both A and B are in the family guns. At this point you haven't supported the tag you added. Springee (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

To avoid a long back and fourth what about changing the reference to this one [[23]]. Same expert. Makes it clear we are talking about mass shootings, not mass murders. Springee (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So I take it then we can also use this as a source for the AR-15 being an assault rifle? "Despite their unparalleled firepower, most mass murderers actually do not use assault rifles, but instead rely on more easily transported and concealed semi-automatic handguns" oh and he does use mass murderer this time, not in an interview but a carefully thought out written piece. So yes he means exactly what he says. So we need to make sure we actually reflect what he clearly IS saying.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Again you are being illogical. The message is clear even if he said "assault rifle" (as many in the press say). In context it is still clear "mass murder" is referring to the perpetrator of a mass shooting. Let's drop the unreasonable arguments. Springee (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that he is in fact being vague and imprecise (and there is no if about him saying assault rifle, I quoted it). That is my point, what he is saying is not clear cut an unequivocal (and I also...not new issue), it is in fact a model of the opposite, statments that can have a number of meanings.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The intent is clear. The expert talking about the outcry associated with mass shootings. It is very reasonable to infer that "mass murder" and "mass murderer" in this context refers to the mass shooting and the perpetrator of the mass shooting. The criminologist says that handguns vs assault weapons (sometimes saying assault rifles) are the primary gun type used. Since AR-15's would be seen as not handguns and in the media a type of assault weapon the meaning is clear and requires no twisting of sources or logic. I've removed the verification tag. I would suggest we figure out how to handle the citation marked with an OR tag. Springee (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said I disagree it is clear, far from it it look deliberately obscure, so I have given an attribution and a reflection of what he said, I think I will make it a direct quote.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

CNN interview does support the content FOX: "And indeed, most mass murderers don't use assault weapons. They use – they use semi-automatic handguns. That's the most common weapon, but not what would be declared an assault weapon and banned." (title= "Criminology Professor to CNN's Tapper: Mass Shootings Aren't an 'Epidemic'") So your is frivolous and not correct. Please show on what grounds support your view.

The book from 2016 listed as well as the study both mention the Mother Jones "Mass Shooting Database" the chart makes no "conclusions". It simply provides a listing of mass shootings and the weapons used. These are simply just facts and it is simply provided to show its most recent update 2018 has not changed the percentages. (title= US Mass Shootings, 1982-2018: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation) So your "Source is a list, it is OR to draw these conclusions (it does not even define mass shooting") is frivolous and not correct. Please show on what grounds support your view.

Please either provide legitimate reasons or revert your changes. -72bikers (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have above.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Springee I have the study that quotes the Mother Jones chart, study page 136 [24] there is also more sources using this chart and in support of the content. I did not want to or thought needed to over cite it, But I have done my research on this matter.-72bikers (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this not already in an RS?, it is not a new sourceSlatersteven (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I also note another 2014 source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest directly quoting the studies that use the data rather than the data. Springee (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven on what grounds are you making the claim OR?72bikers (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On the grounds it does not list all of the weapons used in all of the shootings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven How are you interpreting that, for every one of the shootings listed, it shows type of weapon and weapon details. Were in the chart are "you" seeing this? -72bikers (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On things like case 5 which says Semi auto rifle, but dose snot specify type.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok lets go through it, case 5 I counted to the rifle use percentage. It states semi-automatic rifle so similar to the AR it only does not state the caliber. Next? -72bikers (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven the chart defines 4 weapons types semi-automatic handguns, rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. The same as the study. -72bikers (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven there are tools provided that also allow the ability to filter the chart for specific stats, as well a list and link for the sources of every shooting so there is no guessing nor OR.-72bikers (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's hence trying to draw definite number form this sources is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also you removed a direct quote that whose inclusion removes any issues why, why not provide his actual words?Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

To further support the statistics, "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research"[25]. From Feb. 24, 1984 to Feb. 14, 2018 in the last 35 years USA Today states that only 14 mass shootings have specifically used a AR-15.

As shown the mother jones chart from 1982 to 2018 include AK's as well as other similar semi-auto's in there list of rifles used. They only use 4 groups, rifles, semi-auto handguns, revolvers, and shotguns. As I pointed out you can filter the list to see specific uses as well as every mass shooting in the chart shows the source that can be checked.

But as you point out "Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's" I will address your concern to resolve this issue. -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why was not just providing his direct quote not doing this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I can not understand your broken English. -72bikers (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the last edit of the article you made I would not criticize others standards of English, unless you are saying it was a deliberate edit. My adding of his quoted (which you undid) words addressed my concerns. So I ask again, why not just include his quote about mass murderer and assault weapons? How does this not address my concearns?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

If that is your only concern I will restore with your suggestion. -72bikers (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Its not (as you are fully aware). I have said it needs a rewrite, and until I see what is being suggested (here, not as an edit to the article) I cannot agree to any edit (especially given the mess of your last attempt).Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC) And indeed your latest edit repeats those bizarre errors, thus it is clear it was indeed not a mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Now (72 bikers) do you want to suggest a properly written compromise here, you need consensus for any edits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the material in general should be in the article. If we are going to put so much emphasis on "weapon of choice" then we should also note the statistics that do/don't support that claim. That isn't to say the material as added was acceptable but the sourcing seems fine in general. We just need to refine the language. Springee (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

We already do make much the same point in the first line. As I said I want to see any suggested edits here (given the latest shenanigans) before anything more is added to that section.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you have final say on what is and what is not included to the article? -72bikers (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't but I will say that the edit you inserted was so illegible that I wasn't certain what you were trying to say at all. Which is why I reverted it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow if that does not look like a personal attack I don't know what does. 72bikers (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack in that what I attacked was the quality of this one edit, not you, as an individual. And this edit was of stupendously poor quality. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223 - the material you added is so badly written as to be nearly incomprehensible (heard of commas?). It's also redundant/in the wrong place - the section already states at the very beginning that most shootings are with handguns. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not say I had final say, but if you post gibberish it will get reverted. Virtually everyone agrees this needs re-writing. I mean what does (in effect) "Dr Fox helped himself with his study" even mean?Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the compliment that means a lot coming from your eloquent vocabulary. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W's edit

This edit looks like a violation of the remedies on this page (you cannot restore material that has been challenged by reversion without first acheiving talk page consensus). Waleswatcher (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: Get real. The material wasn't "challenged", it was removed with a misleading edit summary by an editor who to my knowledge has never edited the article before, and thus treated as test edit/blanking/vandalism (take your pick). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed it because it was literal nonsense. I suggest you self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here:

A study by Dr. Fox a professor of criminology and statistics assembled (with some help from Fox in the past)[62] by Mother Jones from 1982-2018...

This is literally saying that Fox helped his own future self complete the study. It's literal nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

And I can assure you that this wasn't a test, nor was it vandalism. I saw mention elsewhere on Wikipedia to that paragraph and it's complete nonsense. As per the excerpt above. So as per the DS on this page I expect you to correct your error in this regard. I can assure you I am very aware of the discretionary sanctions here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It was challenged, you may not agree with the reason but it was challenged. He picked the wrong word to use (nonsense might have been better). But it was not vandalism (on the other hand I would argue the restored edit is, there is no other way to view such a jumble of words). So it can be argues (Thomas.W) that you in fact resorted vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, going forward I will refer to the edit with the word I meant, even though it's a little bit less kind. It was illiterate. Simonm223 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not an improvement. It is neither illegible nor illiterate (meaning "unable to read or write"). It is unintelligible. A person may be illiterate, a piece of writing may be unintelligible (meaning "impossible to understand"). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Its un-intelligibility lies in its complete failure with regard to grammar. Thus illiterate seems apropos. I decided to go with illegible, IE: impossible to read, because it seemed slightly kinder. But notwithstanding my word choice the edit is still galling and WP:CIR still applies. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, and uncivil. Vandalism is by definition a malicious act. You could not argue in good faith that 72bikers intent was to deface the article by adding the material, nor that Thomas.W's intent was to deface the article be restoring it. One of the dot points at what is not vandalism is "[n]onsense, accidental". You may safely assume that 72bikers contribution, unintelligible or otherwise, was not vandalism. Another dot point in the same section is "[d]isruptive editing or stubborness". Whether you consider Thomas.W's reversion disruptive or not, it is still not vandalism. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If a user makes an edit that is bad, no that is not vandalism, if they make an edit that is bad...and then reinsert it despite objections without altering, that is vandalism. The issue is not that they made a grammatically bad edit, it is that they then reinserted it despite being told it needed to be re-written. Thus it was not an accident (or a mistake), it was deliberate.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

[I]f they make an edit that is bad...and then reinsert it despite objections without altering, that is vandalism - This is not what vandalism means. You've given a potential definition of disruptive editing (reinstating bad edits is disrutive), but not of vandalism (disruption is NOTVAND). You are not helping by misappropriating serious labels. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to whether the edit should stand. And I persist in saying, on the grounds of WP:CIR that this edit should not stand. This edit has been clearly and explicitly challenged as per the discretionary sanctions on this article. I posit that literally nobody here was trying to vandalize the page intentionally. But there is an impressive failure of WP:AGF and WP:OWN from Thomas.W who seems to believe no new editors should be allowed to make edits here without his personal blessing. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OK lets assume it was not vandalism (I would like to see an explanation as to why this was done without it being malicious, but lets let that ride). It was clearly (and deliberately) disruptive, and that alone is enough for this material to be removed (and it should be) and no edd should have reinstated disruptive material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of writing out my thoughts on the material itself. I am not in support of it, and certainly not in its current form. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok then could you, as a person who has not previously reverted it in the last 24 hours (per WP:1RR) please revert it then until we can discussed a revised and usable formulation for the edit? Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I could, but no, sorry. It's now at ARE, in two sections, and I'm disinclined to jump into the fray on the article for a second time. I'll stick to talk, and hope for a speedy resolution here, at least for a copy-edit. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I've had an opportunity to take a closer look at the removed material now, and I agree with the assessment that it is unintelligible, in its current form, in part. I can glean most of its intended messaging with a few quick copy-edits of the material, and so I will address the material as it was intended to be written, rather than as it was written. A copy-edited version of the material: A study by Dr. Fox, a professor of criminology and statistics, assembled by Mother Jones with Fox's help, using data on mass shootings from 1982-2018 showed that the weapon of choice for mass shooters was, overwhelmingly, semi-automatic handguns. It is a very common misconception that AR-15's or similar rifles are preferred. In the last 35 years, AR-15s had been used in 14 mass shootings. while rifles, generally, had been used 25% of the time, and semi-automatic handguns almost half the time. This copy-edit is just a draft formulation. Verifying where the material is sourced from:

A study by Dr. Fox ... showed that the weapon of choice for mass shooters was, overwhelmingly, semi-automatic handguns, [i]t is a very common misconception that AR-15's or similar rifles are preferred and ... rifles, generally, had been used 25% of the time, and semi-automatic handguns almost half the time. These statements are sourced from Page 65 of Jaclyn Schildkraut's book on mass shootings. I am not sold on the source. Schildkraut professes to be a mass shootings expert, but I don't see any obvious sources/qualifications to back that claim. She appears to be an assistant professor in the department of public justice in a university in New York.[26] That said, provided that the source is accepted, there are two minor issues that need addressing 1) the study was conducted by Fox and Moncia Delateur, and this needs proper attribution and 2) some peacockery (lifted from the source, I might add), e.g. "very common" and "overwhelmingly". Otherwise I'm not seeing any OR.

... assembled by Mother Jones with Fox's help is sourced from the Pacific standard. No obvious issues here. This does neglect to mention that Fox and Moncia think that the MJ report is imperfect (arbitrary definitions obscure long term-trends).

... using data on mass shootings from 1982-2018 ... - comes from the Mother Jones link itself. No obvious issues here either. The material is based on the little blurb in the editor's note.

In the last 35 years, AR-15s had been used in 14 mass shootings ... - sourced from a USA today article, though the USA today article lists 13, not 14 such instances. The USA today article is only taking into account mass shootings in the US, and the written statement implies in total. The conclusion is also drawn by the reader from the article, but not explicitly stated as such within the source. To quote: Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years .... I can't say that it is or is not a definitive list.

I'll leave comments about due weight, neutral point of view, etc, for later when we're agreed on what is being said. Till then, there's no point bringing it up. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Fox study and the mother Jones report are separate, and the mother Jones report doesn't say "it is a very common misconception that AR-15's or similar rifles are preferred" that comes from an interview with Prof Fox. Or "rifles, generally, had been used 25% of the time, and semi-automatic handguns almost half the time", I am not sure what source actually says that (well any referring to events after 2014), but the Mother Jones source does not, it is just a list of incidents.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Two comments.

• The first phrase in this section is "While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns,[58][59][60]". If we want to add more detail to that (explicitly mention mass shootings for instance) that's OK, but we should not have two sentences in separate parts of that section saying basically the same thing.

• Most of the sources talking about how AR-15s/related rifles are the weapon of choice etc are reacting to the fact that AR-15s have been used in disproportionately many of the worst (most deadly) shootings, including basically all of the most recent. My own personal opinion is that this is probably not because they are really the "weapon of choice" or used more often, but rather because AR-15s are simply more deadly than handguns. Regardless of the reason, though, this fact has gotten a tremendous amount of coverage and the article needs to reflect that. Of course it can, should, and already does say that handguns are used more often. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's right SlaterSteven. I went and found where each fragment was from. The two statements you are saying aren't from Mother Jones are from Page 65 Jaclyn Schildhart's book. One is based on Fox and Delateur's 2014 study, the other is her own words. I had meant to mention the erroneous synthesis of the Pacific Standard article and Schildhart's book to conclude that Fox and Moncia's 2014 paper is being presented in the Mother Jones report, or at least I think that's what [a] study by Dr. Fox a professor of criminology and statistics assembled (with help from Fox) by Mother Jones ..., is meant to mean, but it seems I've neglected to. Oh, and the Fox and Moncia study may be accessed here if you have access to sagepub. I don't, so I can't actually look at the report itself. Though I suppose it's a primary source anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is outdated and so cannot be used for a statement that seemed to imply it was up to date.Hence why in my version I made it clear it was a 2014 study.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The version that is currently live seems to claim that the data extends to 2018 - do any of the references actually support that? Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, the mother Jones source lists (what it claims is, this is contested, by Prof Fox, it also does not tally with other lists) all mass shooting, from that you can extrapolate. But as it is not comprehensive I do not think it can be worded with so much certainty.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Mother Jones reflink above just says it's the full dataset used for a different article, not an exhaustive list of mass shootings. Also, using raw data that way skews pretty close to WP:OR - This might be a better reference from the same publication Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Key quote on their findings: "In that regard, ours is a conservative measure of the problem." Which implies that Mother Jones does not see their research as necessarily exhaustive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that any use of Mother Jones (in this regard) must be attributed in text, with no extrapolation to make claims.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So for the Mother Jones study, perhaps we could use the following:

According to a survey produced by Mother Jones of mass shootings between 1982 and 2018, handguns accounted for half of all weapons used in mass shootings while 20% were rifles. 29% of weapons used in mass shootings had high capacity magazines. Mother Jones conceded that for a variety of reasons it's difficult to create an exhaustive survey of mass shootings and described their assessment as, "a conservative measure of the problem."

Then we'd have to come up with a different statement for the Fox study. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Mother Jones conceded that for a variety of reasons it's difficult to create an exhaustive survey of mass shootings - Where do you see this concession in the article? I'm not able to find it. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I was interpreting the "a conservative measure of the problem" as that concession, was just trying to situate the quote. If that's too WP:SYNTH let's look at other ways to approach the limits of the Mother Jones piece. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How about, as an alternative that is less synthy: "Mother Jones conceded they'd excluded some shootings that might be considered mass-shootings from their data-set, calling the set they arrived at, "a conservative measure of the problem."

That I'm okay with. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, so putting it back together:

According to a survey produced by Mother Jones of mass shootings between 1982 and 2018, handguns accounted for half of all weapons used in mass shootings while 20% were rifles. 29% of weapons used in mass shootings had high capacity magazines. Mother Jones conceded they'd excluded some shootings that might be considered mass-shootings from their data-set, calling the set they arrived at, "a conservative measure of the problem."

And then a separate sentence talking about Fox's study. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, taking a crack at the Fox sentence:

James Alan Fox and Moncia J. DeLateur addressed the Mother Jones study, which Fox had provided assistance on, in a paper for Homocide Studies, where they argued, "that the magazine’s ground rules for determining what to include in its report—numbers... (created) an arbitrary definition of “senseless” killing."

This would immediately follow the Mother Jones sentence. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Simonm and Mr rnddude, thanks for working on the content. Can I suggest one small change? "Mother Jones conceded they'd excluded some shootings that might be considered mass-shootings from their data-set, calling the set they arrived at, "a conservative measure of the problem."". Can re remove the MJ quote and simply say something like "MJ said they arrived at a conservative measure of the problem."? It's a style thing on my part but I don't think such a statement would require a direct quote for verification. It's a small thing and otherwise thanks for charging into this! Springee (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise: (I'll exclude refs this time around as we're getting duplicates in the reflist)

According to a survey produced by Mother Jones of mass shootings between 1982 and 2018, handguns accounted for half of all weapons used in mass shootings while 20% were rifles. 29% of weapons used in mass shootings had high capacity magazines. Mother Jones constrained their data-set to arrive at their survey and called it a conservative measure of the problem. James Alan Fox and Moncia J. DeLateur addressed the Mother Jones study, which Fox had provided assistance on, in a paper for Homicide Studies, where they argued, "that the magazine’s ground rules for determining what to include in its report—numbers... (created) an arbitrary definition of “senseless” killing."

It still takes the "conservative measure of the problem" out of direct quotes, but provides a bit of context about what that means. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That might belong in the article on mass shootings, but it strikes me as too detailed for an article on AR-15 rifles. What does it add beyond what is already in the first phrase of this section? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This material does make sense for the mass shooting article. I agree about the length concern however we need to recall why it should be in this article. In the AR-15 article we have a section saying the rifle is "weapon of choice". While there may be some merit to that statement, it's largely made in context of emotion laden articles on the subject. Clinical reviews of data, the sort of thing that doesn't get as much press and certainly not right after a shooting, don't back the "weapon of choice" claim, or at least take some of the wind out of the sails. So it does make sense to include some level of scope and validity to the "weapon of choice" statement we are including. I do think we should make the text as compact as possible but it shouldn't be removed so long as the article is going to include the more inflammatory "weapon of choice" label. Springee (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the issue though. The "weapon of choice" statement is reliably sourced, and structurally leads well into the data about its frequency in recent high-death-count shooting sprees. If we want to include quantitative data that pushes against that which, ok for WP:NPOV reasons is fair, we also need to make sure we effectively qualify that data. The Mother Jones survey is a strong RS - I don't think anybody doubts that - but it's also limited by its very constrained terms of what constituted a mass shooting, as Fox and DeLateur point out. Alternatively, we could leave that para as it is currently, absent these two sources completely and figure we can place them in Mass Shootings. That would still leave "most shootings are with pistols" ref in, which provides the qualification to the later statements, albeit in less detail. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Mother jones Investigation is not used for anything other than the data, they are a anti gun publication. They with updated data 1982-2018 support that the Fox study percentages are still essentially the same. This is exactly why I choose to use them to show a non bias. They have received negative feedback for there inclusion criteria and have reassessed there data guidelines. The suggestion below seems to just drone on about Mother Jones (get a room already) instead of the pertinent facts. Such as that over the last 35 years AR-15's have only been used in 13 mass shootings, this fact is highly important to this article in the crime section. -72bikers (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, nice work. The 13 12 uses and 14 13 uses discrepancy is based the 13 12 was written before the Florida shooting and obviously the 14 13 was after. I will provide a link to the fox study as well as some other references.

• USA Today "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research" (13 uses) [27]
• "Fox (who provided some assist to the Mother Jones team)","Fox, dubbed the “Dean of Death,” is one of the go-to academics whenever a mass shooting roils the national consciousness", “Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,”[28], The study [29]
• CNN transcript "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons . They use – they use semi-automatic handguns ." [30]
• Book "A very common misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014) clearly shows that mass shooters weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns" [31]
• Fox study, "notwithstanding the questions surrounding inclusions/exclusions, suggest that assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advo-cates believe." "only one quarter of these mass murderers killed with an assault weapon","Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by this gun-control group involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines", public Mass Shootings,(semiautomatic handgun 47.9% - assault weapons 24.6%)[32]
• YouTube video of the Fox interview on CNN, [33].
• Fox "The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings." [34].
• Fox credentials, [35], [36].
• News article, "found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 riflel. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings,handguns in 47.9% [37].
• News article, "They found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9%." [38].
• Fox news article, "Over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting", [39].
• Book by Fox Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns. [40].

-72bikers (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone post the full text of the proposed edit, including where it would go and how it will mesh with the existing text? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Waleswatcher that a proposal on if/how to meld this with the rest of the section is needed. At first glance the proposal seems rather redundant with the information already in the section. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it ironic that only (what?) a month ago it was being argued this section was too long. At most there sdhould be one snetance added to the first line, not a whole paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Assault rifle

Professor Fox (an accredited and recognizes expert, according to some) has started that the AR-15 is an assault riffle, is there any valid reason to to go with his claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No. This point has been beaten to death and you are distorting a source to try to make this claim. Springee (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

NO I am not unless you are saying that his statement about assault rifles does not include AR-15's. If it does then he is saying they are assault rifles. Thus (if his opinion) is worthy of inclusion why not over this issue as well? Why now the rejection of "expert" opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Armalite AR-15 is indeed an assault rifle. That's already stated in the article. That said, nowhere in this article does James Alan Fox refer to the AR-15, or any other firearm, by name as an assault rifle. All he says is that mass murders are not generally committed with assault rifles: Despite their unparalleled firepower, most mass murderers actually do not use assault rifles, but instead rely on more easily transported and concealed semi-automatic handguns. This is not the same thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I hope no one else makes that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have to twist sources to get that statement to mean the AR-15 is an assault rifle. Springee (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the one saying the source is talking about the AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not use that article to support the claim that the civilian version of the AR-15 is an assault rifle. Though it does seem a reasonable statement about handguns which might be useful in the Mass shootings in the United States article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

None of my 3 sources listed call a AR a assault rifle. In fact the book I use as a reference states "Arguably the most scrutinized type of firearm during this commentary is the assault rifle, what is commonly, and incorrectly, referred to by politicians, pundits, and the general public as an "AR" "A true assault rifle is a fully automatic, thereby continuing to shoot bullets as long as the trigger is engaged"

That is the only mention by Fox to state that I have seen in his many studies and many interviews or sources that reference his studies. It was also the reason I choose not to use it. -72bikers (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Springee, what about Dean Winslow, a medical doctor and retired Air Force colonel who had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as a flight surgeon, nominated as the Trump administration’s assistant secretary of defense for health affairs? See here: "...he said he wanted to underscore “how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semiautomatic assault rifle like an AR-15.”"Waleswatcher (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'd agree that would be a reasonable source to use for his definition of the weapon as an assault rifle, but it might not be sufficient source alone for us to say so in Wikipedia's voice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. Then, who should we rely on for the precise definition of a term? Hard to beat a dictionary for expertise on that... Miriam-Webster defines "assault rifle" both ways: "Definition of assault rifle: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire". Waleswatcher (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

We have already been through this, per WP:UNDUE a "colloquial definition" in a single dictionary doesn't trump 70+ years of sources using the correct definition. And since the English language Wikipedia is an international English language encyclopaedia, not a U S only encyclopaedia, articles here should reflect international use of the term, not colloquial U S only use... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W is correct. There really is no reason to keep beating this dead horse. Springee (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In agreement here. You may refer to this page of this document for the U.S. Army's definition, which is the one used on Assault rifle - which also has 4 or 5 other sources saying the same thing including one written by SGM Francis A Moyer, "Special Forces Foreign Weapons Handbook". Dictionaries constitute tertiary sources[41], so I'm disinclined to use them for complex issues (they are by design meant to be broad overviews, not detailed explanations), but you can just as easily pull a different dictionary e.g. Oxford Dictionary and cite A lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude writes, "Dictionaries constitute tertiary sources". Not so, not on wikipedia. See WP:DICTS, where Merriam-Webster is explicitly listed as a secondary source for wiki. As for the Oxford English Dictionary, I checked the unabridged version earlier and didn't find an entry for "assault rifle", although I did learn that the word "rifle" is American in origin (which makes M-W an even more reliable source). The "Oxford Dictionary" you've linked is something else, I guess? Cambridge dictionary also has no entry for "assault rifle".

Thomas.W: "articles here should reflect international use of the term, not colloquial U S only use". Wiki standards is to use US English in articles on US topics, which this topic arguably is. Moreover there's no reason to believe this usage of assault rifle is "US only".

Springee and dead horses - this is first time I've had any discussion of this topic, and anyway things can always be brought up for (re)consideration (and it wasn't by me). Waleswatcher (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, you've linked me to an essay. Otherwise known as an opinion piece without consensus for a guideline or policy. The Oxford Dictionary I linked to is the Oxford Living Dictionary published by the Oxford University Press. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And you've linked to nothing of relevance. So you tell me which to take more seriously - an unbiased (and rather pedantic) essay specifically about this precise question, or your unsupported assertion? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

False. I cited Sotheby's Institute of Art, specifically it's New York library. It is you who "linked to nothing of relevance". Mr rnddude (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Be civil. And I said nothing of relevance. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, I will once again let other, competent, readers work it out. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Another personal attack, noted. And I don't think any unbiased reader will have trouble deciding which is relevant - an essay on wiki policy on precisely this question (that mentions precisely this dictionary), or some random webpage classifying sources. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WW, I didn't actually accuse you of starting this discussion though you did restart it. Again, no. Expert definitions, ie firearms experts, say it must be select fire (among other characteristics). Please refer to previous discussions of the subject [[42]]. I would suggest trying to address the definition there before trying to use it here. Springee (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Full revised text

so in the use in crime section:

While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns,[58][59][60] AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[58] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[61] This is contradicted by some quantitative research of mass shootings. According to a survey produced by Mother Jones of mass shootings between 1982 and 2018, handguns accounted for half of all weapons used in mass shootings while 20% were rifles. 29% of weapons used in mass shootings had high capacity magazines. Mother Jones constrained their data-set to arrive at their survey and called it a conservative measure of the problem.[new ref] James Alan Fox and Moncia J. DeLateur addressed the Mother Jones study, which Fox had provided assistance on, in a paper for Homicide Studies, where they argued, "that the magazine’s ground rules for determining what to include in its report—numbers... (created) an arbitrary definition of “senseless” killing."[new ref] Notwithstanding this survey data, AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history,[62] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[63] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[63] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[64] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.[65][66][67]

This includes the critique of the AR-15 as the gun of mass shooters that I now suspect was the intent of the original edit and situates it with regard to the limitations of the data and how it fits with other reliable sources. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"This is contradicted by some quantitative research of mass shootings" - no it isn't. The preceding statement refers to "the most high-profile" mass shootings. The second refers to all mass shootings. So where is the contradiction? This is not a small point - the reason AR-15s get so much attention isn't that they are used in most mass shootings, it's that they are very deadly. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion:

While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns,[58][59][60] and only 20% of the weapons used in mass shootings were rifles[new ref], AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[58] mass shootings in the United States and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[61] AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history,[62] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[63] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[63] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[64] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.[65][66][67]

Not quite sure who made this proposal. Scratch the word "only" before 20% and I'd be satisfied with this. Simonm223 (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't love it but it's probably a good compromise edit (and I'm OK with Simin223's suggestion). Springee (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I made the suggestion, and will happily scratch "only". Waleswatcher (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Better then any of the above.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I see that Slatersteven's edits (see my comments below) were based on the above text. Having had a chance to review the above I think we need a few more edits (thus I don't agree with adding the material quite as is). My edit which reflects my concerns is here [[43]]. I suggested slight changes to the opening sentence. We should use the term semiautomatic military-style rifles vs "assault weapons". Our article on assault weapons clearly states it's a political term and that definitions are nebulous. The term I'm using was used in the book I cited. Springee (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Fox (et all) say Assault weapon. So I am dubious about using a source that (in effect) alters what another source says. Especially when it is so out of date. Either they (Fox and Delatour) are accurate, ion which case we go with their choice of words) or they are not accurate (in which case we cannot use them). If a source changes their words we must attribute such a change (and then we overburden the section with more weight again)Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concern but I will counter that the authors of the cited book are credentialed academics in the field and that the military style semi-auto rifle term is more accurate given that, depending on the law in question, some AR-15s aren't assault weapons while some Olympic .22LR target pistols are. I included the quote in the citation in part to address your concern. I can understand that often assault weapon is used as a phrase of convenience to address a group of firearms like the AR-15 and AK-47 but given the controversy around the term I try to avoid it. Springee (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As are the academics they chose to "misquote". And it still does not alter the fact it is a massively out of date source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that is a misquote. They are summarizing the data accurately and using a better term. Nothing wrong with that since the intent of the data isn't lost or altered. We are free to do the same thing. Springee (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they? How do we know that Fox (et all) did not include a weapon in the list that was not a military style semi-auto rifle (whatever that means, is there a clear cut definition)? When an academic uses a term they do so deliberately, if Fox used a term that is what he meant, what he meant by it is not for us to decide. But as I said it is also still out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure it was deliberate vs just convenience? If a medical paper says laproscopic vs endoscopic surgery are they being deliberate in the distinction or using the terms interchangeably. They aren't the same thing but they greatly overlap. Again, we have a RS using the "military style" term when talking about Fox's data. We also don't have Fox's actual study so we can't say why he picked the term. Springee (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I got a copy of the Fox paper [[44]]. Let's see if they say anything specifically about the term. Springee (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No just his words in written material about the subject (more then once). So yes I think it is clear that Prof Fox means "assault weapons" But as to why he uses that term, we cannot say. But as I said it is academic as it is all out of date (and so that is my final word, it is out of date).Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A read through the 2014 paper makes it clear Fox was aware of the problematic nature of the term "assault weapon". Consider this sentence, "As shown in Table 3, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in random massacres that firearms that would typically be classified as assault weapons." It's clear the author understands the definition is not fixed. The Assault Weapon article makes it clear that the definition is not settled and thus we should be cautious about using it. If we want to quote the author we can say "firearms that would typically be classified as assault weapons" since that is how he specifically addressed the vague definition issue. Springee (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

28 Aug edits

@Slatersteven:, why would you revert this edit [[45]] but not this one [[46]]? Both are citing the same study. It's logically inconsistent to remove the first but keep the second. Additionally you have restored other changes that aren't related to the study. Please explain or let's agree which parts of the changes should be retained/removed. Lacking more recent data what if we say "a 2014 study found"? Springee (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that a study form 2014 really is a valid source for up to date information, nor a source form 2016 that is out of date with regards to the deadliest mass shooting in US history. Sorry but any source that leave out (in effect) the last four mass shootings (including the two deadliest in US history) is not telling us anything about current trends. But you are correct, the other source is even older. But I am now at 1RR, feel free to revert WW's edit. I am not convinced that any of the sources provided are recent enough (I assumed that as we did have more recent sources for Prof Fox that was one of the ones being used).Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I see that WW was adding the exact text from above. Please see my above comments as well as those below addressing your concerns. The 2014 limits is a legitimate concern however, I think if we simply state "a 2014 study". While that leaves out some of the most recent shootings we don't actually have any evidence that the stats are radically wrong. Let's avoid reverting and instead come to an agreement first. Springee (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it is an insignificant difference. It means that it was 37 (or about 26%, maybe not a lot but still inaccurate, and may also be out of date) mass shootings with SAR's. This is why I have always been unhappy with exact figures, it is to open to sudden change. If we have an up to date RS fine no issue. We do not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concern and it's legitimate. I think the counter concern is that lacking anything that says what the rates actually are, the rest of the section might give the impression that SAR's are the primary weapons used in these types of crimes. If the MJ data is to be trusted we could, for discussion sake, do our own compilation of the stats (I think it include firearm type). If the figures are radically different would you be OK using the 2014 data (with "a 2014 study")? Springee (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

At one point I'd done a version where I'd converted the Mother Jones "weapons used" counts to percent. The only OR in that circumstance was converting X out of 143 or whatever it was to Y% - which shouldn't present a problem as long as A) my math was right and B) we aren't being too persnickety on formality. I would, however, support use of Mother Jones as the source as long as we're clear the percentages are of weapons used overall and not frequency of any given weapon used in any given shooting.

I know that seems a rather odd distinction, but there's enough mass shootings where the shooter had both a pistol and a rifle that I think it relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about doing this. In the mass shooting article I would be open to the idea. The problem here is that is seems to be borderline OR and then we would have to show the tie in to the AR-15 article etc. What about doing it as a footnote? We would include the two sources that summarize Fox's 2014 study and then include a footnote saying that the data as of 2018 shows (new numbers). My impression was Fox did a bit of data filtering that we couldn't do. We would instead have to use the raw data and in cases where more than one gun type was cited we would double count. We would note this and that the percentages should sum to more than 100%. As an example if we have 4 shootings with the following gun types: 1) pistol+rifle, 2) pistol, 3) shotgun, 4)rifle) then the stats would be pistol: 50%; rifle: 50%; shotgun 25%. The footnote would keep the text more compact but allow sufficient detail for a reader to understand the text. This same thing could be added to the mass shooting article. Springee (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I've got the same problem with this. Which is why we'd have to word, in the situation you described above, that pistols were used in 50% of shootings. Not that 50% of shootings were with pistols. Which is a very particular distinction and might not actually make things clear for a general readership. Your footnote suggestion has merit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In context of a footnote I think we could make that clear. A sentence saying, "Percentages reflect the use of a firearm type in shooting events. A shooting that uses firearms of two or more types will add to the number of shootings using each of the respective types. For this reason percentages will add to more than 100%." That could probably use some massaging but that's the general idea. Springee (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the mother Jones data may not be all inclusive. Thus we go back to massive amounts of caveated text that really adds nothing. I think what we had summed it up "hands guns are used on most crimes" and maybe add "Including mass shootings" and leave it at that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that "Including mass shootings" is critical since that's what our references are pointing to. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree the MJ data may not be perfect but we can include that disclaimer in the footnote. At the same time the MJ data was used by a previous accademic study and that study was referenced by a book published by a pair of academics. Springee (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is out of date (and no the MJ data cannot have been used, as it covers up to 2018, where as the study is from 2014 and the book from 2016). So they may have used an older data set, but not the one we intend to use.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any information that suggests the general conclusions in the 2014 source (which would be identified as such in the text) would be radically different than the results of 2018? Also, the MJ data could have been used by Fox (Fox was reportedly involved with the data in some way) assuming, MJ continues to update the data over time. It's understandable we don't have a perfect source but we shouldn't reject a good source simply because it's 4 years old unless we have good reason to believe the data is very wrong since then. This discussion has stalled out a bit. I don't want it to just stop. I feel my reverted edits were very reasonable and generally minor. I do see Slatersteven's concerns (which apply to the current text as well as my proposed edits). It really comes down to, do we feel that 2014 data is recent enough for the statements being made (with in text attribution of the date of the study). Springee (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not the general conclusions, which I why I said we just go with a general statement. My objection is to specific conclusions.Slatersteven (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

With 2 article published in 2017 and 2018 in a RS (with the help of Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries) providing the fact that in the last 35 years AR's have only been used in 13 mass shootings, and just one this year, there is no frequency that would make it a toilsome task to keep track of this definitive. This fact also goes to show that the studies would not be outdated, in the last 3 years only 4 AR mass shootings have happened. -72bikers (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The study is 4 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue we're seeing with the discrepancy between MJ's 2018 dataset and the study from 2014 which pulled from it is that MJ kept updating the dataset by whatever methodology they decided on while the study which made use of the dataset is a snapshot of a fixed point in the past and not necessarily indicative of ongoing trends. Things get prickly because the 2018 MJ dataset represents: 1) one of the best available data sets 2) a data set from which no scholarly work appears to have been conducted 3) a data set with some fundamental flaws at the level of selection criteria which may or may not be seen as invalidating it. It's frustrating that years and years of gun lobby activism has made good quality data about gun violence in the US so hard to come by, but I'd posit we should make do as best we can with what we have, and resist the urge to editorialize as we will be treading a fine WP:PRIMARY line no matter what we do. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So lets not editorialize about why no authoritative data exists either. The simple fact is there is none. So what we have is data that says handguns are more commonly used in most mass shootings, data that shows that there is an increasing tendency for semi-automatic rifles (of whatever make) are being used in mass shootings. One does not invalidate or disprove the other. But as to the exact percentage of difference there is not authoritative source for, thus (and why I say) we cannot give any exact numbers, only as vague assertion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. :/ I mean I don't love being in this position, but you make a good point. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It would seem you would (the consensus of two) like to discredit a very respected and cited study. The Fox study is "authoritative data", if you would like to challenge such content you must provide a RS and not be based on your own opinions OR. You have not shown in the last 4 years that the data is outdated, when RS have shown in the last 3 years only 4 mass shootings have used AR rifles.

Perhaps instead of theories we keep to what RS's support and provide the readers with the best factual encyclopedic content we can. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about discrediting anything; the Fox study is four years out of date and two of the deadliest shootings in US history happened in those subsequent four years. Both of those shootings were perpetrated with semi-automatic rifles. When you consider that the conclusions of the Fox study are absent that piece of pretty significant data, yeah, it's kind of stale. And honestly? I don't particularly like where Slatersteven is coming from on this because I would honestly like to have this article be grounded in fact with attention to detail. However they're right that we can't draw detailed conclusions from a stale study, no matter how respected the author. Finally, and for the last time please stop it with the "consensus of two" nonsense. Neither Slatersteven nor I have ever tried to suggest that our opinions alone matter; we have told you that we are trying to build a consensus for revisions that we believe would improve articles in this grouping. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It is four years old and thus out of date, that is a fact. It cannot have take into account any mass shooting in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 (and as it was published in 2014 it's data cannot even include all of 2014). Moreover I am not objecting to including a reference to its claims, only in claiming it is up to date Odd that you do ot think the users needs to know when it was published for example, after all that is also a fact).Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Simonm, remember the study doesn't say percent killed with what type. It says % used to commit the crime. If tomorrow someone managed to kill 1,000 people with a shotgun it would only increment the "shotgun" counter by 1. This is why I ask if we have any reason to think the percentages are so far off current values (what ever they are) as to be meaningless. How many other articles present material that is just a snapshot in time? Voters are for or against X by a given percentage, the public likes or dislikes X etc. Such snapshots of non-static data are common in wiki articles. I do get the wish to avoid stats that are technically out of date the moment any thing that counts as a mass shooting occurs. I mean even if the stats were current as of yesterday a mass shooting of some type today would render them no longer correct. However, these are good, detailed numbers that at least express the situation at a given point in time. When we say "Handguns are used more" the reader doesn't know if that's 51% to 49% or 99% to 1%. At least including this information gives a clear picture at that one point in time. Unless we have information that says that snapshot is totally out of date (Only 5% of homes have internet access! [1996 study]) why dumb down this information? Springee (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That begs the question of how useful a measure of number of weapons, by type, used in mass shootings is for communicating information to the topic to a general audience. Frankly (and we can't because WP:OR but bear with me here) if we were to count number of deaths by firearm type, the 107 people killed by Stephen Paddock and Omar Mateen, would have heavily impacted the findings. Now, to be clear, I am not proposing we do that. Again, WP:OR, but providing a misleading view to the public of the relative danger of semi-automatic rifles compared to handguns is not something I think any of us want to do. Which is why I'm (somewhat grumpily) seeing Slatersteven's point on this. 2015-2018 have been significant years WRT mass shootings in the USA. Five of the ten deadliest shootings in American history happened during that time period. The failure of that source to represent that time period is a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

At this point I'm going to agree to disagree and ask that we instead include the material as a citation (so readers can review it if they wish) and look at a few other cleanups. I think we are going to finish with no-consensus. I think we could clean up the text a bit so I want to keep the door open. Springee (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It is still old data, thus it is herd to see what the user can take form it other then"well 4 years ago this was the situation, what about now?", We should only include current information about current topics.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly Springee they seem to be objecting on irrelevant concerns. The fact of deadlyist is irrelevant as it would only be one use as related to this data. The mother jones 2018 source was included to show the data is not outdated it is even a anti-gun publication so there is no concern they would stack the deck so to speak for the AR's benefit. I have poured through there data and out of 102 cases semi auto rifles were used only about 27 times. That data is easily filtered and easy to understand, the math is just facts not opinion. The USA Toda data from 2018 with help from Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries also shows AR were used 13 times in the last 35 years and in the last 3 years 4 uses (many more with handguns and shotguns MJ) would also point to the study still being accurate. They also published this in 2017 with just one less. Fox also had a book published Jan 29, 2018 that also support these findings [47] (Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns). So there is no case to be made that the data is outdated.

Now if you would like to dispute the studies or there facts you will need RS's to back you up. -72bikers (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If being denied with no basis in policy or RS I feel a noticeboard would be the logical conclusion, NPOV being denied. -72bikers (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

And prof Fox has said the mother Jones data if flawed (the source for that is above ion this winding snake of a discussion), maybe because some sources say there were 7 mass shootings since (and including) 2015 that have involved AR-15's (not 4). So no I do not dispute theses "facts", RS do. Now I am not going to say it again, I will say this. Stop trying to claim that there is an attempt to exclude the claim that handguns are more commonly used (we already say it, now it is there in the text of the article, read it). You do not have consensus so do not attempt to make the edit, do not change the text ion any way I will revert it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you say own? You made your theories clear.-72bikers (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I will not respond to any more personal comments, if you are not able to AGF and not make strawman arguments then I am not going to engage with you. I have laid out my objections and thus there is no consensus for any of this material. If anyone has a complaint to make take it to ANI, idle threats (implicit, or otherwise) do not impress me (and I doubt they will impress anyone who might decide to step in, they are not going to make the grade as a "But I have consensus {according to policy) behind me)).Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Convenience break

Ok guys, here's my attempt to summarize where we stand: 72Bikers wants to lean into the 2014 Fox source and the 2018 Mother Jones study notwithstanding the Fox critique of Mother Jones. Slatersteven does not want to use the Fox source at all because it's four years out of date. Springee agrees we can't use it for specific detailed statements but would prefer to retain it as a ref and I'm on the fence between Springee and Slatersteven on this; I've seen convincing arguments in both directions. In the spirit of WP:AGF and an attempt to prevent verbal sparring from getting worse I would suggest that the four of us - none of whom actually agree about what to do with this at all - does not make for a convincing or exhaustive consensus. Should we consider opening this up to an RfC? This sort of difficult reliable sourcing question is one I feel would be good as an RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not going to get agreement, and yes the atmosphere is getting toxic, so an RFC may be the answer.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

I'm putting my proposed text here. Let's finesse it to make sure we're satisfied the question is neutral and actively reflects our disagreement before publicizing it.

RfC: recency of reliable sources in the Ar-15 style rifle page

A question has arisen about whether it's appropriate to source information with regard to mass shooting trends from a formerly reliable source which is four years out of date. Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown by James Allan Fox and Monica DeLateur was published in January 2013. At the time of its publication it was unquestionably a reliable source; Fox and DeLateur are widely seen as experts in this field of study. But with five of the ten deadliest shootings having happened after the publication of this article the question has arisen whether it is still reliable for describing trends in firearm-type usage during mass shootings. Compounding this problem, more recent sources for similar information are hard to come by with the exception of a journalistic primary source (Mother Jones,) which Fox previously critiqued for its selection criteria. The question, ultimately is, Should Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown be used as a reliable source for current firearm-type usage questions related to mass shootings?

I mean I tried to make the dispute clear without inserting a bias. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is it is being used not to provide historical data, but to represent (given the choice of language in the edit) the current situation. I have never objected to its use (indeed I made an edit that included it), just the fact that it cannot be used as a source for any claim worded to imply it is up to date.14:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Added the word "current" to the question - does that address your concern? Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, more or less.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: @Springee: are you satisfied with how the RFC question is phrased? Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

First, Simonm, kudos for proposing getting input on the question before posting the RfC! I have limited time right now but I hope to have an answer for you by the end of the day. Springee (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, just a few comments. The article was published in Dec 2013. The question is to what extent is the material dated. I think the question is pretty good so long as we treat this as a "seeking advice" RfC vs "Should this sentence be in the article". Alternatively, this could be posted at WP:RSN vs here. I would suggest this would be a RfC where we want general thoughts and suggestions and then we keep pretending to be grownups (I think we are doing a decent impersonation of adults right now :D ) and work it out once we get the input from others. So other than the date of publication I don't know that I can think of anything better. Springee (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSN was precisely the venue I had in mind and I tried to avoid a specific-wording RFC. For reasons I'm sure you're aware of those aren't my favourite thing at the moment. I'll go ahead and post it; with an additional note we are specifically seeking advice. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

First the Dr. James Fox study is dated Dec 18 2013 [48] and there would also appear January 2014 is cited [49], [50], [51] in numerous sources.

"whether it's appropriate to source information with regard to mass shooting trends" on what grounds does anything actually support the denial claim? I assume you are referring to the fact "handguns are the weapon of choice in mass shootings" surely you are not claiming this is a invalid trend or not quantifiable. Besides the 2014 study in support we have a book published in 2016 [52], handguns weapon of choice by a large margin, we also have research from USA Today published 2017 and 2018 wth the help from Stanford University showing a limitled role of AR use in mass shootings [53], [54] 4 uses in the last 3 years. There is the fact also that Stanford this years has stated that it is to time consuming to keep up with any further tracking of this data and lead to a link of MJ for further tracking.

"But with five of the ten deadliest shootings having happened after the publication" this is not a valid argument of denial (it is not about body count), it is simply five uses of the rifle. Man if we only had a way to see how many handguns have been used to date compared to AR's or even rifles in general. Oh wait we do know how many handguns and rifles used because the 1982-2018 MJ [55] compiled data of mass shootings is easy to filter and understand. Also we have a book by Fox published Jan 29, 2018 [56]

"a formerly reliable source" Can you provide any proof that theory is correct? What proof do you have that says it is outdated? This content is supported by highly respected experts and studies, The denial view appears just opinionated assumptions and baseless assertions. There has not even been one policy or reliable source presented that supports the vality of that argument. There has not been anything shown that the data would be outdated, Just the claim of the numerical date not being 2018, but we do have sources from 2016, 2018 supporting the data.

"which Fox previously critiqued for its selection criteria" Mother Jones is a antigun leaning publication we all know that. It is why I felt it would be a good source to provide neutrality, showing my aim was not based on any bias and to show the correlation of Fox with MJ. The Fox critique was on them presenting "a rising tide of carnage using actual numbers, making the argument that the rise in incidents parallels the increases in the number of guns in the U.S". His influence on that publication was to keep the data honest (which was reported they incorporated). Exactly how does any of this dispute inclusion? There complied data is cited as much as the Fox study. The content is not just about one Fox study, it is supported with many sources over many years including 2018. -72bikers (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

2013? so it also does not include any of the data form 2014, so is in fact even more dated, of course it all depends on how many mass shootings there were in 2014, do we have an authoritative source for that?. As to why it is out dates, how about at least 6 mass shootings with Semi-auto rifles that have occurred (including the two deadliest mass shootings in US world? history) since that study was published (and the fact that since the study was published there have been 36 mass shootings 14 (what 48%?) with semi-auto rifles) ? And (again) fox criticized the data in the mother Jones survey for not being inclusive enough.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A formerly reliable source is a statement of fact. In the past this source definitely would have met our reliability guidelines. We're asking to what extent it still does, notwithstanding your unwillingness to hear the critique that it is not now, in fact, 2014. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading the rest of your comments {{U|72Bikers)) you do realize that the only two sources at discussion here are the one RS which is named in the RFC and the MJ article, as the issues Slatersteven raised have to do specifically with that source. His concern that we shouldn't be relying on a five-year-old study for trend data is a reasonable one though I remain divided between his proposed solution and that of Springee. Nobody is contesting that pistols are more frequently used than rifles in mass shootings, the questions are rather whether this source can be used to support that statement considering it's out of date by half a decade in which there were several major mass shooting events, including the deadliest in US history. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

However, most deadly doesn't mean the trends would be wrong. If one mass shooting killed 10,000 people that still just counts as 1. Springee (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that is a separate issue which we should discuss. But I'd rather deal with the RS question first. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, these figures tell us nothing about how deadly the mass shootings were, but we need to be careful even if we do use them so as not to give the impression they have anything to say about that issue, they do not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC).

More problems with too specific figures

So we have this [57] 15 million, [58] 16 million. I think it is fair to say no one really knows.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This is another case where I think we could include the estimates if we make their providence and date clear. For example, if the 20 million figure is considered reasonably reliable in 2016 then I think a reader can feel reasonably confident the current number is 3 million. If the numbers are good then I would be cautious about removing accurate but dated information vs clearly dating it in the article. Perhaps this is because I'm a numbers person so these things are always of interest and I understand the limits of dated information. Springee (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The problems is X-X is not a reasonably accurate figure it is a range (and in this case a large one, of up to a 20% variance). And this figure is only going to change, and I would argue significantly(as in up to a 30% increasing in 2 years). At best we could say "over 10 million".Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"Too specific" isn't a problem if we identify estimates as such. Dated isn't an issue as long as we provide the date of the estimate. I'd be fine with keeping these estimates out of the lede, though, as it might be over-detailed. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The edit was made by a inexperience student. There are more sources I can show that support the estimate. 72bikers (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What is this based on "and I would argue significantly(as in up to a 30% increasing in 2 years)"? Is there a recognized market analysis on AR's that support the claim? It is absurd that it would be so burdensome to track for grounds of exclusion in the article. -72bikers (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Its not 2016.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This is another one where I don't want to revert the revert but the content is in dispute so absent consensus it should be reverted back to the stable version. My take it would be better if the NYT said where the estimate came from however, the NYT would be considered a RS in this case. Slatersteven's additional references appear newer and with higher counts. What about saying experts aren't sure and recent estimates range from X to Y million (with supporting citations)? Springee (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it will change every year, and this is just as much an encyclopedia for next year as this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument for exclusion. Do you have a source or policy that backs up your assumption. I could not even count how many article have statistics or specs that change from year to year. Even other thing in "this" article. This appears to be a baseless argument. Date isn't an issue as long as we provide the date of the estimate. It really is just that simple. -72bikers (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That is usually with very explicit figures, and not usually in the lead (read wp:lead by the way). Moreover even when we do include such figures we include up to date ones, not one 2 years out of date.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be making your own policy based on opinion as a way to discredit data. I do not believe your theory hold water. -72bikers (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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.[2] 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. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

Now you point to policy that says we must include information.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you just ask were does it say we need to include information? Really? Um Wikipedia is a encyclopedia giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject.

Why does such a simple things need to be so controversial? Does someone need a hug? Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

72bikers, I really don't want to be interested in editors' behaviors in this and other articles. Please don't give me a reason to get interested--as an uninvolved admin I am capable of, indeed called upon to, enforce "proper decorum during discussions and edits". Drmies (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be helpful "An estimated 8 million AR-style guns have been sold since they were first introduced to the public in the 1960s, and about half of them are owned by current or former members of the military or law enforcement, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation." CBS news 2018 [59] -72bikers (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet in 2016 it was 10-12 million. So what is the actual figure, our job is to provide accurate information, not grossly misleading information (ohh and WP:VNOTSUFF), that is why this is problematic. So what does this add to our understanding of the topic, why does it need to be in the lead when we say nothing in the body (see wp:lead)? Why should the lead give one figure that could well be wrong (according to other RS), why indeed should a possibly (certainly one at odds with figures given in other RS) wildly inaccurate underestimate even be in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Out of date sources (again)

You cannot use a source from 2013 and imply by use of current tense that it is talking about the current situation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Concur. Far too much has gone on WRT mass shootings and military style rifles since 2013 for us to assume a 2013 source speaks to the current situation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Attributed

This statement in the article "But it has been claimed that AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" comes from this source[60]. I placed a template by the quote and it was removed by Slatersteven with this summary "By the srouces that are used to support the satrtem,net, we do not have to list every source."

I have no idea what he is trying to state with a summary that is completely incoherent.

This substantial claim is not attributed to anyone in the source. There is no author listed in the reference nor is it a attributed quote from anyone named in the reference. -72bikers (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What I meant is that we are using this as a shorthand for "X and X and X said this". Now we can (of course) add even more sources if you wish. Do you want more spruces, other then ones we already have?Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm not sure where I stand on the material you restored (I'm not interested in a big fuss over it) but I think your edit comment confuses issues. The removed quote was, to the best of my recollection, only sourced to the CBS article. The "weapon of choice" statement is the one that was widely attributed. 72biker's is right that the quote is not attributed to anyone in the article and thus is the opinion of the article author. The link doesn't show an author's name. So it does beg the question, why does the wikipedia article use this quote? The "whom" tags that were added to the article were correct. I think it's a fair removal based on policy. As is I would say it's UNDUE. Springee (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As I asked, do you want more sources, as they are out there? Again what is being done is what was done the last time a doubt about this kind of issue was raised. Are we going to have to have another six cites that is a few months time will be reduced to three by the very people now asking for more? I shall start to add them now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So how many would you like, shall we stick with 3 or go for 6 again?Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the new sources make it clear this is AP material that is just being used in several articles. In all three cases the paragraphs are identical. So the source of the quote is likely one of the two AP reporters who are credited in the BI link. In the case of "weapon of choice" we had a number of sources who either made the claim or who repeated the claim as a quote. In this case we have an AP article that is used as the background (or the total article) and republished by a number of sources. That just one source and again raises the UNDUE flag. I see nothing wrong with removing the quote as it currently is only sourced to AP reporters rather than external experts or a wide range of independent reports. Springee (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Springee and 72bikers that argued for removing the gazillions of sources we had for this? Now all of sudden you two want more sources added again? Waleswatcher (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me correct you and point out that you are wrong. You are also clearly not following the issue. Springee (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes we are, and we are saying that it is the same thing that happened last time "well you only have one source" "three sources ". It was clear I said ion response this is shorthand for all those who have reported the claims, but as you want mnore,.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A web search of "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" + AR-15 yields copies of either the AP paragraph in various other articles or quotes of the material here. I don't see evidence that this is a widely repeated opinion or view nor is the quote in question credited to a notable voice. Hence we have a NPOV issue. I would propose removing the quote (but keeping the "weapon of choice" part). Springee (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a case of lack of comprehension of the issue. The content has been legitimately challenged. The claim this content was somehow supported with the overkill of citations is incorrect and has nothing to do with this matter at hand. The addition SS added was a exact copy [61] of the reference that was in the article. So it would appear there is only one source to this substantial claim and there is no author attributed to it.

I am actually a little surprised that no one noticed this. -72bikers (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Err I added more then one source. And when we are discussion a widely held opinion we do not have to list everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And I did not add another example of the CBS source. So before you have a go at others ability to comprehended learn to read.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, your new source has the same problem as the others, it's the same AP paragraph used by several sources. This makes the "whom" tag appropriate. It shouldn't have been deleted because the reason for the tag hasn't been addressed. Do you have any independent sources that say the same thing? While not the specific policy in question, WP:GNG does note that a wire story published in multiple locations is still just one story. The same logic would apply here. We have just one source and the quote is by the reporters, not a notable individual. Springee (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? There are gazillions of sources that make that claim, if not in those precise words, in very similar ones. It's extremely well supported. And you had a hand in removing several of those sources from this article, recently, on the grounds that there were too many. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Then show those sources. Show the sources that provide that quote but aren't just recycling the original AP text. Remember, we aren't talking about the "weapon of choice" text. Springee (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You removed some of them. I'm trying to assume good faith on your part, but it's getting harder and harder. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain you are confused here. The material in question is here [[62]]. While adjacent to the "weapon of choice" material we were discussing recently, it is not the same content. I haven't edited that material in many months. 72bikers rightly noted that the article featured a direct quote, "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" but the source of the quote was unclear. The original CBS story didn't list an author. The paragraph in question is AP wire material that was used in several articles (all the references that have been put forth). The original AP story does list the reporters who penned the quote. However, this opens the question, why would we use that quote in our article? The "weapon of choice" description was found to be one used by a number of independent sources. The "oversized role" quote thus far has been used only by one source, an AP wire story. As I said before, WP:NOTE provides some guidance with regards to how we treat wire material that is reprinted by a number of sources. We consider it a single source. Thus the original question, to whom is this quote attributed and do they have sufficient weight for a direct quote in the article? My feeling is no. If you are going to start suggesting bad faith I would hope you at least understand the question at hand. Accusing others of bad faith while not understanding the question at hand would a basic competency issue. Perhaps we should both assume good faith and competency and stick to the issue at hand. Springee (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for any more sources - those that remain along with the ones you removed already support all this text, including that quote, more than adequately. There is nothing remotely UNDUE about this, it's just about the best supported part of this article. If anything we should get rid of the "It has been claimed" phrase as this is simply a fact. Now please drop the stick leave the poor horse alone. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect. There is only one source for the quote, the AP wire story. That it was reprinted doesn't establish additional weight. As a quoted text it should quote an expert or other significant voice, not a wire reporter. Again this is UNDUE. No sticks or horses here unless you brought them. Springee (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"o i8t has not, it ios sourced content, why not wait for more soces" what is this summary saying? This statement is not comprehensible.

All provided are either a complete copy or just copies of paragraphs, with all coping this word for word, "On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings"

There now is also the issue of SS violating the WP:1RR [63], [64]. -72bikers (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"here now is also the issue of SS violating the WP:1RR" - you should file a report and see what happens. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And 72 you came close with this [[65]] and thiss [[66]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• It seems that we're being asked to find multiple, independent sources that use exactly the same wording to describe the weapon's prevalence in mass shootings. Although different sources use different words, the "oversized role" quote is representative of a prominent viewpoint among RS. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we have an issue with UNDUE weight being given to a particular quote. That quote isn't from a noted expert, it's from an AP reporter. It appears in more than one article because it was a wire article that several outlets ran with in part or in total. I'm not opposed to keeping a non-exact quote similar to how we handled the "weapon of choice" if we have sufficient sources to back the non-exact quote. However, if we are going to include an exact quote then it does have to comply with guidelines related to weight. If we can't find additional independent sources to support the claim it should be removed per UNDUE. I would suggest waiting a week to see what comes up. Springee (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There are at least two independent source, the AP this and this [[67]], which has a different byline. I seem to recall that we used to say most of the recent deadliest mass shootings, this was changed. Maybe it should be changed back, as that is what most of the RS are saying. That in the recent spate of mass shootings have seen the AR-15 play an over sized roll.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not an independent source. It uses the entire paragraph (paragraphs actually) from the wire article. It credits the Associated Press. Springee (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Which does not mean it is not independent, they have not given AP a byline and thus is it this papers own work, attributed to its own staff (and subject to its own editorial standards).Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

They credit the AP as providing content. Sl The quote is in the AP sourced material. Do you deny that the material comes from a paragraph written by the AP? Do we have any sources that make this quoted claim but don't use the AP's text? Springee (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but that is irrelevant, many RS quote each other, that does not mean they themselves have not checked it. It was subjected to ther editorial control, it is thus their material.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not at all irrelevant. The RS didn't say "The Associated Press said...". Instead a news source used the AP material as back filler for their own story. That means its still just the AP wire source. It's not independent. Springee (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Exccatly, they did not attribute it the the AP, they attributed it to themselves, that is their view.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the article ends by saying it used AP material. The paragraphs are 100% identical to the AP wire material. That is not an independent quote. Springee (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Used yes, but (to put it in Wikipedia terms) they put it in their own voice, they did not attribute it. They took ownership of the opinion. Yes it is independent, they are not owned by AP, they do not attribute it to AP.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

OK so lets see what is should say. Many sources say it had been sued in many (*if not most) of the deadliest mass shootings in US history (or at least the most recent ones). So how should this be worded. I shall not add sources, these can be all sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No, they did not put it in their own voice. They used (and credited) the AP for the material in the article. They absolutely did not claim ownership of the opinion and even if what you claim were true (and it isn't) then you have only two reporters making the claim. No subject matter experts and that wouldn't count as wide spread. Springee (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

They do not attribute the quote, thus they take ownership of it. But it is clear we are not going to agree on this issue. So this is my last word on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings"

2 (yes 2) sources, others repeating the AP source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. "A common feature of the most high-profile mass shootings"

Many sources (we have some in the article already).Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. "used in almost every mass shooting in recent years"

• Oppose whilst sources say this I am not sure this is true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. "Used in many mass shootings in recent years"

Many sources (we have some in the article already).Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. "It is the weapon used to kill so many in the country's many mass shootings has been the same in recent years"

At least one source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. A key role in recent, high profile shootings"

Not sure if there are any sources for this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• None or any of them can be used if we have sufficient RS's making that claim. That is why the "weapon of choice" was kept in the article. We had a RFC and it was decided that there was sufficient usage of the claim. If you want to make a factual claim about how often the rifle is used in mass shootings then we can make a NPOV compliant statement. If we want to use an emotive opinion ("oversided" is an opinion) then you need to show that the opinion has sufficient weight for inclusion. Consider the relevant policies/guidelines. Do we have WEIGHT for inclusion? We have only one source for that quoted statement, the AP wire story and the source within the story (the reporter) isn't a subject matter expert. The general feeling that the rifle played a key roll in recent, high profile shootings is arguably significant and likely widely accepted. However, in that case we need to respect NPOV and MOS and make sure we present the information using neutral phrasing/tone. That quote doesn't qualify as such. Springee (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet we do not say it played a a key roll, that is what the suggestions above are about. As I said at one time we said many mass shootings, I do not even recall when that was removed (but recall there was no consensus for its removal.

What about, "The AR-15 has be subject to significant attention and criticism due to its use in mass shootings" or similar. That would make it clear that the simple percentage doesn't tell the whole story without giving any particular statement UNDUE weight. We could also say something like "The AR-15 and it's availability to consumers has been the subject..." All of these statements would need additional input of course. Springee (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Because this does not say what many RS say, that it plays a very large roll in most of the recent (and most deadly) mass shootings. That is the whole point its use is becoming more common and prominent (according to multiple RS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This [[68]] is when the quote was added, it had consensus. Material added as a result of consensus cannot just be removed months (months) latter without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I would concur that a source making use of AP material in the reporter's own voice and by-line would constitute a reporter denoting that as reflecting their own position; if it's not in quotes and it is in that reporter's byline the reporter is effectively taking ownership of the statement. I'm agnostic to the specific wording, but it is encyclopedically relevant that there is a public perception that the AR-15 is a weapon of choice for mass shooters, and that it has been used in several of the recent spate of high profile, high fatality mass shootings in the last few years. We shouldn't be gaming WP:RS to exclude any of the many sources that comment on this cultural element of the firearm. Basically, this information matters, and honestly has mattered ever since Australia, from the perspective of what an encyclopedia should report. I'm flexible on the details of how we communicate that, but we should communicate that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

We are communicating that. The question is if the quoted text should be included in the article. 72biker rightly put a "whom" tag after the quote. It was removed without addressing the question. I'm not opposed to using some type of summary of several sources instead of the text quoted from the AP wire source. However, we shouldn't just use it because some people like it. It's not gaming WP:RS to say that the use of the quote is UNDUE. We certainly aren't excluding the source itself. Also, we do have "weapon of choice" which does make it clear there is a media/public opinion on the subject. Springee (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Its a slightly different point, this is about the fact that are increasingly being used, rather then just being a weapon of choice (which says nothing about the fact they are becoming more commonly used). This is why it is important to point out this is a recent phenomena.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with a neutral statement or a generalized statement to that end. Springee (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It is ironic but this seems (as it seems to be around the time of those discussions) that this was a result of objections to more general language. As such I would suggest (the whole sentence, not just this passage).

• But it has been claimed that AR-15 style rifles have become increasingly common in mass shootings in the United States, and they have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.

Source can be added as needed, this is just the text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In order to satisfy the (whom) question how about "It is frequently claimed within media sources that..." (emphasis only for talk page use.) Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• But it has been claimed withing the media that AR-15 style rifles have become increasingly common in mass shootings in the United States, and they have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.

Not sure about this (almost a kind of appeal to authority in reverse), but I can go with it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's establishing that we're not attributing this perspective to an academic but that it is a widely held and notable one. I'm hoping this'll be seen as an acceptable compromise. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You do not have many RS's saying " But it has been claimed that AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" you only have one and as Springee pointed out the claim is being made by a journalist. It is perplexing that you would keep claiming you have multiple sources supporting you, but actually provide nothing.

Even the selective claim in the article that does not actually state this "6 of the last 10 AR use" is just a tick above half the time (not a oversized role). It also is only attributed to just a news journalist and no notable study.

There are many actual RS sources that support it has been only used in a small fraction of the time (along with your one source). In the last 3 years[69],[70] it has only been used 4 times .

• USA Today 2018 "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research" (13 uses) [71]
• Book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns. [72].
• Book 2016 "A very common misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014) clearly shows that mass shooters weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns" [73]
• "Fox (who provided some assist to the Mother Jones team)","Fox, dubbed the “Dean of Death,” is one of the go-to academics whenever a mass shooting roils the national consciousness", “Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,”[74], The study [75]
• Fox study, "notwithstanding the questions surrounding inclusions/exclusions, suggest that assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advo-cates believe." "only one quarter of these mass murderers killed with an assault weapon","Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by this gun-control group involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines", public Mass Shootings,(semiautomatic handgun 47.9% - assault weapons 24.6%)[76]
• CNN transcript "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons . They use – they use semi-automatic handguns ." [77]
• YouTube video of the Fox interview on CNN, [78].
• Fox "The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings." [79].
• Fox credentials, [80], [81].
• News article, "found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 riflel. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings,handguns in 47.9% [82].
• News article, "They found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9%." [83].
• Fox news article, "Over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting", [84]. -72bikers (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Which part of "recent" or "increasingly" is challenged by any of these?Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Also what one of the sources 72bikers uses says about the matter we are discussing "AR-15-style rifles have increasingly appeared in American mass shootings, including the deadliest high school shooting in the nation's history at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., Wednesday.", it is hard to see how this does not support the suggested edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

First as to the headline you reference, surely you know that journalist sensationalize. This is why Springee brought that up. But I am glad you brought this source (published 2018-recent enough?[85]) (they also published this in 2017 minus the one use in 2018 [86]) into question because USA Toady along with Stanford University do specifically speak to the AR use in MS. These are just facts no opinions to muddy the waters. I would also point out these two article were speaking to the copycat affect (hence the headline) for the selection of AR's is what the notable experts concluded.

• 2015 4 MS with a AR
• 2016 1 MS with a AR
• 2017 2 MS with a AR
• 2018 to date 1 MS with a AR

What source have you shown other than the AP to support "But it has been claimed that AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile". You make all these statement as if you have dozens of RS's and notable sources to backs you up. But you repeatedly fail to provide any sources. All you kept showing was just a copy in part or whole of the same one source. -72bikers (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not go and do some research. If this is such a widely supported claim then there should be no problem finding a number of sources that support it. It really is that simple. Failing to do this just makes it look like OR. I will repeat Springee "I don't see evidence that this is a widely repeated opinion or view nor is the quote in question credited to a notable voice. Hence we have a NPOV issue." Speculation made by a journalist without some actual support would be UNDUE weight being given, especially with only one source mention.

All the reliable and expert supported RS's shown are recent from 2018 and back 4 years. The claim that a source needs to be (9/19/2018) is not realistic. First 2018 is not over so there is no definitive claim that can be made for this year. We have 2017-2016-2015-2014 that could be the most recent years used to claim some definitive. They all show weapon of choice is handguns significantly and on the rise with no mention of your claim. Without data compiled and expert reviewed and published, there could be multiple speculations made but without some proof it is just speculation.

Even the selective claim in the article that does not actually state this "6 of the last 10 AR use" is just a tick above half the time (not a oversized role). It also is only attributed to just a news journalist and no notable study. -72bikers (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It was not a headline, it is in the body of the article, and there is no policy that says we only represent expert opinion (and again I ask for a source that explicitly says there is not a trend, material can only be challenged as inaccurate if an RS says it is).Slatersteven (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As to your OR analysis, 2018 2 mass shootings so 50 % with AR's, 2017 2 mass shootings so so 50 % with AR's, 2016 100% with an AR, 2015 100%, 2014 0%, 2013 0%, 2012 50%, 2011 0%, 2010 0%, 2009 30%, 2008 well we have to go back to 1990 for the next one. That is what is meant by increasingly common. Between 2000 and 2014 there was 1 mass shootings with an Ar (what 15%), between 2015 and 2018 around 50% of mass shootings are with RS's (with a total of 8 mass shootings, more then the previous 30 years combined). Of course this is only for incidents with 10 or more victims, but then that is what the suggested text says, they are becoming more common in the deadliest mass shootings.Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask for you to show sources that explicitly says this is a trend, material can only be included if a RS says it is. I don't see evidence that this is a widely repeated opinion or view nor is the quote in question credited to a notable voice. Hence we have a NPOV issue." Speculation made by a journalist without some actual support would be UNDUE weight being given, especially with only one source mention. If this substantial claim is true then there should be no problem finding a number of sources that support it. You have stated there were numerous sources that supported the claim and that is why it was included. perhaps there was just a error made and no one noticed until now. The facts speak for themselves.

All you are doing is presenting theories based on your own opinions OR. You and I are not recognized experts. This is why I have shown with support there is no evidence of your claims.

Go find sources that support your claim, it really is that simple. -72bikers (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

He did and you argued they didn't count because they came from AP. There's only so long you can refuse to hear what others have to say before it just becomes an exercise in WP:TEND Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I am using the same method you are, looking at what sources say and extrapolating that is the point. You can only say what RS explicitly say (which you seem to accept from the above). Thus you have no provide one source that challenges any of the suggested texts, I have provide sources that explicitly say all of them. You have not provide one source that says these weapons a re not a common feature in the most recent or deadliest mass shootings. All your sources show is that they are not the most common in all mass shootings (which is not what the suggested edits say).Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Attributed - edit break

Why would there be sources saying this is not true, if there are not any sources saying it was? You have not shown any sources that support this. You stating you have is perplexing. Just "one" mention by a journalist. You have blocked content that was way more recognized and supported, so your basis for inclusion seem to have double standards.

Please now show here all sources you have for your claim. -72bikers (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the suggested text above, it can all be sourced (and has been suggested as a compromise, so no there is no double standard, you have just refused to provide anything that contradicts any of the suggested compromises, just ones that contradict a claim no one has tried to make). And lay of the PA's, no there is not a double standard (and we can all throw around accusations of impropriety), And no it is not one reporter, there are in fact at least four who have bylines for that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

So care to actually provide one source (just one) that actually disputes that the AR-15 or similar weapons have not become a common feature in many of the most deadly mass shootings?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask for you to show sources that explicitly says this is a trend, material can only be included if a RS says it is. I don't see evidence that this is a widely repeated opinion or view nor is the quote in question credited to a notable voice. Hence we have a NPOV issue." Speculation made by journalist in one article and without showing or stating what supports this theory would be UNDUE weight being given. If this substantial claim is true then there should be no problem finding a number of sources that support it.

Go find sources that support your claim, it really is that simple.

Then please show here all sources you have for your claim. -72bikers (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no suggestion to say this in the article, so I do not have to provide sources for a claim I am not asking to be included. You however do have to provide sources if you want to exclude a given statement as untrue. The claim is not "there is a rising trend" that was just used to illustrate why you cannot use "ahh but if a source says " I can say " (you argument) You can see what the suggested edits (the edits, what we want to include) above, if you cannot actually offer a valid, coherent (or even cognitive) reason for them to be exclude then then you are just being tendentious. You have been represented with alternative texts, comment on them, and not on a text no one has susgested adding.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it looks like your multiple sources consist of one story reprinted in many different outlets, and the author of the statement is not named. If this one anonymous source is the basis for a bold claim, then you really need to identify the author as someone authoritative, or withdraw with as much grace as you can muster. --Pete (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

We have moved on from that, we now have alternative wording suggested.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No we have not moved on, that statement could not be further from the truth. -72bikers (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read the suggested alternative texts? You have not moved on, everyone else had and were discussing new compromise texts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyring: We judge the reliability of the source, not the author. We can be confident that the AP has fact-checked the content regardless of who wrote it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Skyring is correct. In this case we aren't suggesting that the AP reporter's opinion is "inaccurate". It's a subjective opinion, not a provable fact. To use such a bold opinion we would need to establish weight for inclusion. We haven't. Springee (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As I have said we now have some alternative texts to replace it on offer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

SS no there has not been a acceptance. There have been 4 editors that have rejected your claims.

If this is such a widely supported substantial claim then there should be no problem finding a number of sources that support it. It really is that simple. You have stated that you have numerous sources that make this claim but have not provided them. Failing to do this just makes it look like OR. I will repeat Springee "I don't see evidence that this is a widely repeated opinion or view nor is the quote in question credited to a notable voice. Hence we have a NPOV issue." Speculation made by a journalist without some actual support would be UNDUE weight being given, especially with only one source mention.

This AP reference was originally used for this "However, they are used in a very low percentage of gun crimes in the U.S. overall" [87].There are numerous sources that support this claim.

As to "We judge the reliability of the source, not the author." Editor SS has rejected repeatly content from this AP source, so that comment is a bit perplexing.

• "An estimated 8 million AR-style guns have been sold since they were first introduced to the public in the 1960s, and about half of them are owned by current or former members of the military or law enforcement, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation."[88].
• "While a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm"[89],-72bikers (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, here is where I see this right now. First, we have a quote that as a direct quote should be removed per WEIGHT. However, just as we have the "weapon of choice" non-specific quote, I do think it's correct to say that the use of AR-15 rifles in mass shootings as resulted in a lot of attention and scrutiny of the rifle, far more so than the use of handguns for example. I think it would be reasonable to put in some replacement text that conveys that idea. I think that is the "moved on" discussion (though my summary may not reflect the views of others). Can we agree to remove the exact quote and that we will work towards a new summary sentence of similar length? I'm OK waiting to remove the exact quote so long as we are making progress on the replacement text. Springee (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I would rather keep the quote for now. By the way we have plenty of sources that say "prominent roll in...", which is not a (however many) source quote, and avoids dismissive lines about "well that is just what the media think".Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with this direction for content to replace the quote. I would suggest three strong sources. I don't think the AP article counts as a strong source for such a claim. Instead, articles which specifically discuss the prominence. I'll be honest I don't think it's value added content in this article but it will be content that stands on solid ground as far as Wikipedia policy and guidelines are concerned. That should make it easier to include without a big fight. So long as we are making progress I think it's better to leave the quote as is. Springee (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with removing the quote. There is no support for this "oversized". Data and expert analysis shows AR's are not the weapon of choice and they only make up part of the 25% use. And recent numbers seem to hint this is shrinking. Further the article claims 6 out of 10 in recent history that is just a tick over half. How is half "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile". What is this distinction "high-profile"? How are we to know what this one article journalist was explicitly stating? Deadly, highly covered, or...? We are already filtering to make so many distinctions. What's next, of the people named Fred 100% of the time they used AR's? What's next, of the people single 100% of the time they used AR's? -72bikers (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

SS you would appear to claim there is no distinction between what a journalist would sensationalize or speculate from what compiled data and recognized experts analysis say. You repeatedly stated there is more than the one AP article that supports the claim, but have failed to provide them here is a little perplexing.

Your comment above "that actually disputes that the AR-15 or similar weapons have not become a common feature in many of the most deadly mass shootings?" are you now claiming all semi- auto rifles as a way to expand your claim? Because the article claims just "AR-15 style rifles." Are you trying to change the claim to something that is already in the article? Is this your claim "this is about the fact that are increasingly being used, rather then just being a weapon of choice (which says nothing about the fact they are becoming more commonly used). This is why it is important to point out this is a recent phenomena."? Have you flip flopped your argument?

You repeatedly stated there is more than the one AP article that supports the claim, but have failed to provide them here.

• "Now we can (of course) add even more sources if you wish. Do you want more spruces, other then ones we already have?
• "So how many would you like, shall we stick with 3 or go for 6 again?"
• "And when we are discussion a widely held opinion we do not have to list everyone"
• "There are at least two independent source" "And I did not add another example of the CBS source learn to read"
• "Many sources say it had been sued in many (*if not most) of the deadliest mass shootings in US history"-72bikers (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Springee, to your suggestion what about in the U.S. during the last 35 years 13 times featured AR-15-style rifles. Or in 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used them. There is probably something to be said that because of there age they could not by a handgun so they used rifles. Would this be something we should include? -72bikers (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not judging the quality of sources, just that they use the phrase. [[90]], [[91]], [[92]]

less strong[[93]]

Does not say prominent says something similar [[94]] "center", [[95]] "commonly" (or "increasingly", which is at the heart of this whole debate)

So it is clear that many RS say it has a large roll in many mass shootings (in fact generally they say the most deadly in recent years).Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As you openly state these are not reliable or not support the claim and seems like grasping for straws. I do commend you though for actually providing references.

This source does not support the claim [96].It has a sensationalized headline (prominent i.e. important). I assume in the body your claim is "appearing again and again as a murder weapon in mass shootings." This does not imply "an oversized role". It says "These are the five most recent AR-15-involved mass shootings" and claims 3 AR uses in 2015, but then goes on to state one shooter just had a AR at home, not during the shooting, 1 use 2016, and 1 use 2017.

I question this source [97] as it appears to be a gun control blog. It also is misrepresenting the USA Today article in this AR article now. "By USA Today’s count, the AR-15 has also been the weapon of choice for eight deadly mass shootings in the last three years", this is blatantly wrong. They also go on to misrepresent what Dean Hazon said in the article.

This source [98] is asking for money to fund it and no author listed.

This source [99] no copyright, no publisher, and only one author for all articles. This does not seem like a reliable source, also I don't see any support of the claim. They do seem to support "copycat" and "media companies are sensationalizing mass shootings", and asking the media "Don’t sensationalize headlines".

Both of these use the USA Today articles 2017, 2018 in the article now.

• This source[100].
• This source[101].

What does seem to be "an oversized role" Is the use of the 2017 and 2018 article with USA Today research and with help from Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries . They state in the last 35 years AR's were used in 13 mass shootings and 4 uses in the last 3 years.

• 2015 4 MS with a AR
• 2016 1 MS with a AR
• 2017 2 MS with a AR
• 2018 to date 1 MS with a AR

I would also remind the AR article states "recent six of the ten deadliest" just a tick over half is not "an oversized role" Also how about the fact there is no similar claim in all gun violence. They do appear to mirror each other in the fact handguns are the weapon of choice overwhelmingly. -72bikers (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The "source asking for Money" is the guardian A well respect mainstream UK newspaper, and asking for a subscription does not invalidates it. And you are correct (though not about me saying these "state these are not reliable or not support the claim)m we do use some of these (odd then you should say they are not reliable, as you have not challenged them up till now). You can also see that I used some of these not as examples of an exact phrase, but for using similar language (say the use of 18 out of 36 rather the 50%).Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It is asking for contributions not subscriptions. It still has no author and still does not support your claim. You saying you used citations in the article that do not support your claim or that for some reason I was suppose to read them before hand is nonsense. You also now appear to be stating you are playing mind games. Do you not get tired of all this bickering? Do you not see it is like a drug the more you feed it more it draws you in (my precious)?

It is clear you don't have specific support, it is abundantly clear this is not a widely held opinion. You now appear to be trying to shoehorn the substantial claim into something else or into something that is already in the article and be redundant.

How does this "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" and this "primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest" not contradict each other?-72bikers (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Odd as when I look at the source I see no request for money, which is why I assumed it was some subscription type thing. Also it does have a byline, its in the left hand column.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you would want to pursue debating a trival matter that is irrelevant.

The basis of this discussion is this substantial claim. But it has been claimed that AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile".

Your claims.

• "So how many would you like, shall we stick with 3 or go for 6 again?"
• "And when we are discussion a widely held opinion we do not have to list everyone"
• "Many sources say it had been sued in many (*if not most) of the deadliest mass shootings in US history"
• "it is the same thing that happened last time "well you only have one source" "three sources "
• "It was clear I said ion response this is shorthand for all those who have reported the claims"

It was then claimed in a way to try and shoehorn it into something else that still did not come to fruition.

Many editors have pointed out we don't see evidence that this is a widely repeated opinion or view nor is the quote in question credited to a notable voice. Hence we have a NPOV issue. It is only logical we remove the quote as it currently is only sourced to AP reporters in one article rather than external experts or a wide range of independent reports.

Even with all the compiled data and expert analysis I have shown aside, the article makes the claim that just a tick over half in just recent history "primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest".

But in a effort to stop all this needless bickering. I would put forth that we incorarate this not as a quote but a word or two to the existing related content.

they have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.

Suggestion as the weapon of choice for perpetrators in many high-profile crimes. -72bikers (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We do say this already, no need to say it again.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I will give it a couple of more days to await further opinions, before making any changes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have the edits in mind or are you still working on it? I think it would be good to propose the edit here first. Springee (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The one already suggested, there is no need to reiterate it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

With all the edits I guess I'm missing which one is the proposed replacement text and supporting citiations. Would you please link to it? Are you referring to the bolded statements from Sept 19th? Springee (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No the last one made, the one we are supposed to be discussing now, the one from the 22nd, the one you agreed to as long as it is sourced [[102]]. Maybe if we did not have rambling strawman posts this (and I have said this before here) would be easier to follow. It should not be this hard to have a conversation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, you mean the "prominent role in" suggestion? I think that is a good start but I would suggest posting the complete change here with citations unless you intent to use the same citations that support the "weapon of choice". It wouldn't surprise me if the same citations support both statements and I don't think prominent role in would be hard to support based on some of the recent articles. Springee (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Then you could read the ones I have posted already here. I should not have to post the same sources two or three times. Also there is the fact that whilst some sources (some, not all) do not say "prominent" they do use phrases like Central or common (which can be said to say much the same thing). Thus I would suggest (as I said for brevity I will not give the sources, as I have already posted them above).

"However media commentators have suggested that AR-15 style rifles have played a prominent role in many of the most high-profile mass shootings in the United States and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes."Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with that sentence other than I think "many of the most high-profile" should be just "many high-profile". I think that the crime is "high-profile" is sufficient. Do understand that given all the back and forth I was asking for this so it is clear what the intended changes are before the change is made. Clearly I didn't understand. I do get your concern about long posts drowning the discussion and perhaps that is why I missed which changes you were proposing. Given the contentious nature of some of the edits it's just better to propose the full change here so we don't end up with several rounds of tweak that could run afoul of the 1RR rule. Springee (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No issue with your suggested tweek.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You had me at media commentators have suggested that.

So the new statement is "However media commentators have suggested that AR-15 style rifles have played a prominent role in high-profile mass shootings in the United States and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes."-72bikers (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This text is not OK with me. First off, in English you generally don't start sentences with "However" (with no comma). Secondly, there is no question at all that AR-15w have played a prominent role in high-profile mass shootings in the United States, and there are plenty of sources for that, not all of which are media. Third, it's awkward (and not true) to attach the second part about the weapon of choice like that - they have come to be characterized that way, full stop. As it is now, it says "media commentators have suggested that AR-15 style rifles...have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes", which is just ridiculously convoluted. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the text on the left in this diff is too much wp:weasel; I support the prose on the right. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Media commentators" is misleading and inaccuarate. The USA Today source, along with other similar stories, are news reports and not opinion/commentary. Factual statements by reliable sources should be presented as fact in Wiki voice, not as an attributed opinion or "suggestions". –dlthewave ☎ 02:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It was included by me solely as a compromise suggestion to try and get a consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the inclusion of the contrast word, "However" or something similar as a transision does make sense. You have a stat that says one thing followed by a view (regardless of source) that seems to contradict it. I'm not sure "Nevertheless" is specifically better. The exact "played an oversized roll" quote needs to go for reasons outlined above. The "prominent roll" part is easier to support and less subjective. Dlthewave, I don't think it's correct to say that a factual report doesn't contain opinions. For example, there is a difference between a reporter talking about a "huge homeless issue in Des Moines" vs a reporter interviewing an expert who says "there is a huge homeless problem in Des Moines". In the first case, even if the bulk of the story on the homeless is fact based, the scale of the problem is the opinion of the reporter. In the second place the reporter is conveying the opinion of the expert. Springee (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What about this as an alternative to the sentence Slatersteven had suggested (presumably with the same supporting citations)?

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

I'm open to alternatives to "However".Springee (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we can remove the "A" as it reads a bit awkward, other then that no issues with it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's much better. How's this variant:

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

(with cites obviously). Waleswatcher (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with this version. We could probably use the existing citations to justify the "prominent role" claim. Springee (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, your edit summary and the text edit don't align here. [[103]] Springee (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes sorry about that - User:72bikers fixed it already. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Lethality

Are there rational bases to quantify lethality of AR-15 style rifles? Wikipedia's article on lethality (although unsourced) suggests observations about probability of death as a result of exposure. In the absence of ammunition, a kitchen knife or baseball bat is probably more likely to cause death than an AR-15 style rifle would be. Ammunition has characteristics more readily associated with lethality, but AR-15 style rifles use various cartridges. Since consequences of bullet injuries are a function of both the bullet energy and the bullet path through the victims' body, it seems intuitively obvious that lethality would increase with increasing bullet energy, and with the number of bullet paths through the victims. Bullet energy is much better correlated with ammunition than with the firearm. The number of bullet paths through victims (and the potential for at least one of those paths to cause critical damage to a critical organ) may be increased by the number of shots fired. Factors increasing the number of shots fired include multiple shooters, multiple firearms per shooter, multiple magazines per firearm, multiple cartridges per magazine, and ultimately the number of cartridges available to the shooter(s). None of those factors are unique to AR-15 style rifles. It seems more likely the presence of AR-15 style rifles in the events of interest is a consequence of the popularity of these rifles among recent gun purchasers and the consequently greater availability of suitable ammunition at reasonable prices from most retail ammunition sales locations. Thewellman (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You bring up a number of points that would need to be supported by reliable sources before they can be discussed for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Stopping power would be the relevant WP article; lethality is about toxicity, not trauma. Obviously we're not talking about unloaded firearms, and if we were then I would point out that ammunition on its own is not particularly lethal either. No, we're talking about the combination of firearm and ammunition as discussed in multiple reliable sources: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. These reliable sources describe a number of factors such as large-capacity magazines, semi-automatic firing, light weight, ease of use, affordability and availability which, though not individually unique to the weapon, combine to make AR-15 style rifles particularly lethal and attractive to mass shooters. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Rifles are used in a small minority of mass shootings. Handguns are by far the weapon of choice for mass shooters. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Mass shootings in the United States covers both viewpoints: Although handguns are used in most mass shootings, AR-15 style rifles have been used in six of the ten deadliest. This viewpoint has significant RS coverage and WP:DUE requires that we include it. –dlthewave ☎ 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Propose closing this thread per WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not editors' personal opinions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think editors Thewellman and VQuakr have brought up very valid points.

Dlthewave, the both viewpoints you claim are compiled data and expert analysis versus journalist sensationalized speculations that have been proven to be contradictory to the actual facts.

As to the "AR-15 style rifles have been used in six of the ten deadliest" it needs the filtered distinction "recent" to make the claim a tick over "half", without, it is less than half. The fact AR's have been available to the public long before the recent distinction, It could be argued that the recent uptick could be accredited to the increase sensationalized journalist coverage of the AR and the copycat effect. AS well with such a small number of these events, besides the obvious such as how many weapons used or shooters tactics, there very well could be variables besides the AR not accounted for. Yet it is in the article along with the media claim (which as you admit is incorrect) the weapon of choice claim.

As to the opinion topic, editors have made speculations repeatedly "combine to make AR-15 style rifles particularly lethal and attractive to mass shooters". None of this supports the claim the weapons is being chosen for it's perceived lethality. Handguns at these close ranges are just as deadly and with large-capacity magazines, semi-automatic firing, light weight, ease of use, affordability and availability, oh and a point being overlooked "there easy to conceal" -72bikers (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I put this issue under a separate heading when I noticed lethality mentioned three times in the foregoing discussions. It might clarify the foregoing issue if editors could agree on the meaning of the term, and I hoped providing a separate topic heading would minimize the possibility of losing varying definitions within the broader discussion. I have no objection to closing this thread if there is consensus about whether lethality is a measure of response to exposure (as would be suggested by the Wikipedia article on the subject) or a measure of the percentage of casualties attributed to a specific item as might be implied by the suggested text (or some other definition supported by appropriate sources). My goal is to minimize the frustrations associated with discussions among editors who seem to have difficulty understanding each others' language. Thewellman (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, Wikipedia's Lethality article is about an entirely different topic. –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave:: agreed, I don't see anything relevant in that article. I'm fine with hatting this section: I think there is a nugget of article-relevant discussion in here, but the signal-to-noise ratio is so low we'd be better off starting over. @Thewellman: I don't think the WP article on lethality is much help to us here - a bullet injury is obviously totally different than exposure to a toxin. Sources (even when the less-technical publications are excluded) diverge sharply on whether 5.56 is significantly different in its ability to cause injuries than other intermediate cartridges. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We had a discussion on this a while ago, and we were unable to reach a consensus for the same reasons as the thread above "expert" vs "not an expert" opinion. It is best to leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)