Line 575: | Line 575: | ||
:::::This has been explained to you, if you fail accept, so be it. -[[User:72bikers|72bikers]] ([[User talk:72bikers|talk]]) 14:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC) |
:::::This has been explained to you, if you fail accept, so be it. -[[User:72bikers|72bikers]] ([[User talk:72bikers|talk]]) 14:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
*The current version fails to cover all significant viewpoints, which is unacceptable. That is why this is being discussed. Since we can't read the shooters' minds, we only have theories to explain why they chose a particular weapon, and policy requires that we present all of the prominent theories. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 14:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC) |
*The current version fails to cover all significant viewpoints, which is unacceptable. That is why this is being discussed. Since we can't read the shooters' minds, we only have theories to explain why they chose a particular weapon, and policy requires that we present all of the prominent theories. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 14:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
:: Not really. We have no RS showing alternative views. Remember that we already covered why lay opinions aren't sufficient on this case. In short we don't have other "significant" points of view. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==Lethality== |
==Lethality== |
Revision as of 15:31, 30 September 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gman84370 (article contribs).
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)
- 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)
- Then I hope no one else makes that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 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[1], 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)
- Sigh, I will once again let other, competent, readers work it out. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Be civil. And I said nothing of relevance. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:26, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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[1], 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
- Thomas.W is correct. There really is no reason to keep beating this dead horse. Springee (talk) 19:53, 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)
- 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)
- 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 [[2]]. 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 [[3]]. 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 [[4]]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
28 Aug edits
@Slatersteven:, why would you revert this edit [[5]] but not this one [[6]]? 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The study is 4 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 4 September 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 [7] (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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- @72bikers: @Springee: are you satisfied with how the RFC question is phrased? Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, more or less.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Added the word "current" to the question - does that address your concern? Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 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 [8] and there would also appear January 2014 is cited [9], [10], [11] 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 [12], 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 [13], [14] 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 [15] compiled data of mass shootings is easy to filter and understand. Also we have a book by Fox published Jan 29, 2018 [16]
- "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
USworld? 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).
- 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)
- 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
More problems with too specific figures
So we have this [17] 15 million, [18] 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [19] -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)
- 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 [19] -72bikers (talk) 03:46, 9 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[20]. I placed a [by whom?] 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 [21] 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 [[22]]. 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)
- 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)
- I'm certain you are confused here. The material in question is here [[22]]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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 [23], [24]. -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 [[25]] and thiss [[26]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 19 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)
- There now is also the issue of SS violating the WP:1RR [23], [24]. -72bikers (talk) 18:04, 18 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 [[27]], 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- "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)
- "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)
- "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)
- "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)
- "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)
- 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 [[28]] 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).
- I'm OK with a neutral statement or a generalized statement to that end. Springee (talk) 13:52, 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)
- 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)
- 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[29],[30] 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) [31]
- 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. [32].
- 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" [33]
- "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,”[34], The study [35]
- 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%)[36]
- CNN transcript "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons . They use – they use semi-automatic handguns ." [37]
- YouTube video of the Fox interview on CNN, [38].
- 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." [39].
- Fox credentials, [40], [41].
- 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% [42].
- 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%." [43].
- 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", [44]. -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?[45]) (they also published this in 2017 minus the one use in 2018 [46]) 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)
- No we have not moved on, that statement could not be further from the truth. -72bikers (talk) 14:56, 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)
- We have moved on from that, we now have alternative wording suggested.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 22 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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" [47].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."[48].
- "While a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm"[49],-72bikers (talk) 23:04, 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)
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?
- 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.
- 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. [[50]], [[51]], [[52]]
- less strong[[53]]
- Does not say prominent says something similar [[54]] "center", [[55]] "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)
- You repeatedly stated there is more than the one AP article that supports the claim, but have failed to provide them here.
- 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 [56].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.
- This source does not support the claim [56].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".
- I question this source [57] 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 [58] is asking for money to fund it and no author listed.
- This source [59] 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.
- 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 thisis 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".
- The basis of this discussion is this substantial claim. But it has been
- 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"
- Your 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.
- Many editors have pointed out
- 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 [[62]]. 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).
- 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)
- 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 [[62]]. 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)
- 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)
- The one already suggested, there is no need to reiterate it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- "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)
- You had me at
- Looks good to me too. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- No issue with your suggested tweek.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 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)
- "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)
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. [[63]] 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)
- What about this as an alternative to the sentence Slatersteven had suggested (presumably with the same supporting citations)?
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)
opinions on why mass shooters choose the AR-15
Currently, the article only quotes one view on mass shooters' motivations for choosing ARs, and it's almost certainly a minority view. Personally I'm not sure this article needs any views like that at all - it's inherently speculation and not particularly relevant - but if we are going to discuss it, we need to represent the mainstream (and rather obvious) view: that shooters choose ARs (and similar rifles) because they're really lethal. There are at least tens of sources saying that, but User:Springee reverted my attempt add such a view. Springee, care to explain why? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the mainstream view should be represented prominently. The Atlantic source is a good one. –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, the opinion of media members and gun control advocates should not be given prominence over the views of researchers on the subject. This is just a repeat of the previous discussion. Springee (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure that A gun shop owner and instructor is a researcher on the subject either. But I do not agree wit the OP, in fact I agree with the sources this is almost certainly the reason...it is the way the gun is marketed, as a means of shootings lots of rapidly moving animals.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- We previously discussed this. One was identified by several RS's as an expert. The other is a criminologist. Springee (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- They are called experts, not researchers, and we do not dismiss a view that is predominant (as the OP claims) or even prominent enough to be quoted by the same RS as the "experts" just because it has not been identified (by the media) as an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The criminologist would be a researcher. Again, this is a debate that we already had and came to a consensus about. I don't see a reason to reopen this. Springee (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is why I said gun shop owner and instructor. I am not reopening it, I am saying that your claim that people who are are not "researchers" should not be given prominence over "researchers" is not valid as it least one of the quoted "experts" is not themselves a researcher (or perhaps it might have been better (for both of us) to say academic).Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I see the concern. Yes, I didn't mean that both people cited by the RS were researchers. Rather, one is a researcher but both were said to be experts. Sorry for the confusion but I think we are in agreement. BTW, thanks for you help on the material above. Springee (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- We never came to a consensus regarding this, and in any case everything in the article is always up for evaluation, so please stop attempting to suppress the discussion. There is an obvious point - AR-15s are much more lethal than handguns or shotguns. So when mass shooters choose them (for whatever reason, the motivation isn't actually relevant to this point), they tend to kill lots of people. Shootings where lots of people die are high-profile and get a lot of attention. That explains this whole debate very simply, and it's a widespread and mainstream view reflected in many RSs. We cannot leave it out of the article per UNDUE etc. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Then find the experts that say as much. Also drop the accusations of bad faith. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- It does seem awfully odd that we're excluding a broadly held, widely reported opinion that AR-15s are used in shootings with more deaths because they're better at killing masses of people than pistols. Think about the vegas shooting. The discussion of bump stocks, long range rifles and high capacity magazines carried on for weeks. You simply could not have committed that crime with a handgun. This is notable and due information. Excluding it because it's not been researched by academics (as it's a "the sky is blue" sort of statement) seems rather like WP:TEND in practice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The way it is written now comes off as WP:WEASEL and is begging for a [by whom?] tag. Do the opinions of commenters matter? PackMecEng (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The OP is asking for material to be added for balance, and what he wants to balance out is attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I saw that, which would seem to be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also just to make sure I am on the same page, they are refering to this edit correct? PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think it was this edit [[64]]. The edit with "However" is being discussed above and I think we are all generally in agreement there. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks I was not sure which of those they were referring to. It fits either which is why I went ahead and mentioned it. For the future it would be helpful for them to post what edit they are commenting on. The "other experts" is dubious at best and seems just tacked on the bottom to give balance to uninformed views. Again actual experts in the field disagree with those and media commontators personal opinions are meaningless. So I would stick to WP:FALSEBALANCE as an uninformed minority view given to much weight. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly false balance only applies where there is a clear distinction between fringe views and mainstream, there is not here (as there is no clear definition of what the mainstream is, and no having the media declare you an expert is not a valid criteria after all it is media opinion that is being criticized here). Secondly, not is is not about that edit as far as I know. It id about the reason the gun is being chosen, which that edit is not about. We do not have to have experts, opinions just have to be notable. When a source quotes three people we can use all three. No where in policy does it say "only experts allowed".Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think it was this edit [[64]]. The edit with "However" is being discussed above and I think we are all generally in agreement there. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I saw that, which would seem to be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also just to make sure I am on the same page, they are refering to this edit correct? PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The OP is asking for material to be added for balance, and what he wants to balance out is attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- We never came to a consensus regarding this, and in any case everything in the article is always up for evaluation, so please stop attempting to suppress the discussion. There is an obvious point - AR-15s are much more lethal than handguns or shotguns. So when mass shooters choose them (for whatever reason, the motivation isn't actually relevant to this point), they tend to kill lots of people. Shootings where lots of people die are high-profile and get a lot of attention. That explains this whole debate very simply, and it's a widespread and mainstream view reflected in many RSs. We cannot leave it out of the article per UNDUE etc. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I see the concern. Yes, I didn't mean that both people cited by the RS were researchers. Rather, one is a researcher but both were said to be experts. Sorry for the confusion but I think we are in agreement. BTW, thanks for you help on the material above. Springee (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is why I said gun shop owner and instructor. I am not reopening it, I am saying that your claim that people who are are not "researchers" should not be given prominence over "researchers" is not valid as it least one of the quoted "experts" is not themselves a researcher (or perhaps it might have been better (for both of us) to say academic).Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The criminologist would be a researcher. Again, this is a debate that we already had and came to a consensus about. I don't see a reason to reopen this. Springee (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- They are called experts, not researchers, and we do not dismiss a view that is predominant (as the OP claims) or even prominent enough to be quoted by the same RS as the "experts" just because it has not been identified (by the media) as an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- We previously discussed this. One was identified by several RS's as an expert. The other is a criminologist. Springee (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure that A gun shop owner and instructor is a researcher on the subject either. But I do not agree wit the OP, in fact I agree with the sources this is almost certainly the reason...it is the way the gun is marketed, as a means of shootings lots of rapidly moving animals.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- If WW or those who want other POVs on the topic find expert sources saying as much then we should include them. Back when we first discussed this I said as much. The problem is trying to add non-expert opinion to balance expert opinion. I would be more open to this if we had several experts and we were balancing their views. Also, at some point this really should be part of the mass shooting article rather than the AR-15 article. A mass shooter might pick say the Sig MCX for basically the same reasons they would pick an AR-15. They aren't the same rifle but would be largely interchangeable in context. Even an AK pattern rifle may be. Thus the question becomes why use a magazine feed, intermediate caliber, semi-auto rifle vs a pistol. It becomes a topic for the mass shooting article since it wouldn't be specifically confined to this article (even if many sources say "AR-15" when actually meaning more generically magazine feed, intermediate caliber, semi-auto rifles. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The obsession with the minutia of gun design as if it were significant when people die seems a uniquely American quirk. I'd suggest an international audience couldn't care less if any "generically magazine feed, intermediate caliber, semi-auto rifles" weapon would be just as deadly when people are using this one to murder dozens of people in a single go on the regular. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- We have articles about the crimes for people who are interested in the details of the crimes etc. We also should be specific about things like if the gun is an AR-15 vs something else in context of the AR-15 article. People from New Zealand after all are right to point out when it was say New Zealand vs Australian military units that distinguished themselves when fighting for the British. But to much of the world the difference may not mean much. That may be an extreme example (and forgive me if you feel it wasn't a good one). Regardless, since we have primary topics on the individual crimes and mass shootings as a whole this information would be far more germane there vs here. Springee (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- So why then do we need someone elses opinion as to why they are being picked? Either the debate as to why they are being picked is relevant (in which case all viewpoints noted by RS have to be present) or it is not (in which case none should be.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- We have articles about the crimes for people who are interested in the details of the crimes etc. We also should be specific about things like if the gun is an AR-15 vs something else in context of the AR-15 article. People from New Zealand after all are right to point out when it was say New Zealand vs Australian military units that distinguished themselves when fighting for the British. But to much of the world the difference may not mean much. That may be an extreme example (and forgive me if you feel it wasn't a good one). Regardless, since we have primary topics on the individual crimes and mass shootings as a whole this information would be far more germane there vs here. Springee (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The obsession with the minutia of gun design as if it were significant when people die seems a uniquely American quirk. I'd suggest an international audience couldn't care less if any "generically magazine feed, intermediate caliber, semi-auto rifles" weapon would be just as deadly when people are using this one to murder dozens of people in a single go on the regular. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) How about we keep the Hazen/Blair material on motivations, but add something like this:
The high degree of lethality of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, particularly when used against civilians, may account for their role in so many deadly shootings.
- with the Atlantic article (plus many more, if needed) as a source. That way we are not so much balancing opinions on why it is chosen as articulating a widespread view on why AR-15s keep showing up in the deadliest shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- If it is about balance it should be worded the same, as an attributed opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- As others have pointed out, "balance" means representing all viewpoints that are prominent in reliable sources. There is no requirement that these be "expert" opinions, and in any case the relevance of any particular expertise is debatable. An expert in the design and use of weapons may not necessarily be an expert in criminology, and there's also no reason why a gun control group can't have expertise in this area. Instead of analyzing who is and isn't an expert, the standard practice is to present all significant viewpoints.
- The opinions presented in a news report are considered the opinion of the news organization, backed by their editorial board. These aren't the individual personal opinions of journalists. –dlthewave ☎ 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- If indeed that's Wikipedia's policy - that we should represent all views prominent in reliable sources, regardless of the percieved expertise of the author - it nullifies User:Springee's objection entirely, since the viewpoint I attempted to add is far better represented in unquestionably reliable sources than the one currently in the article. Springee, if you disagree that is the policy, can you please point to the wiki policy on experts that supports your position?Waleswatcher (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weight would dictate here. The article text is getting to motive for using a particular gun. We have experts (as identified by external RSs) stating why the weapons are selected. We don't use lay opinions to balance expert opinions. We aren't saying, "here are reasons sources have proposed for why the rifle is picked". We balance the views of subject matter experts. Currently we don't have many expert views and I'm open to adding more so long as they are expert (RS identified, researcher etc). Springee (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again, when you assert "We don't use lay opinions to balance expert opinions", can you please point to the wiki policy that supports that? Thanks.
- If it's about weight as in number of sources, there is no contest - the view I attempted to add is very widely expressed compared to the one in the article now. Also, the text I proposed above ("The high degree of lethality of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, particularly when used against civilians, may account for their role in so many deadly shootings") doesn't actually refer to the motives at all, and is certainly a widely expressed view in many, many reliable sources. Do you have any objection to it? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:RS, context matters.
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
The claim being made in the article is mass shooters are selecting this rifle because of ___. So now we have to ask if that source is reliable, not in general, but for the specific claim being made. That is why we use experts and researchers as sources for specific claims. Then we go back to WP:WEIGHT. We don't give much weight to lower quality sources even if the belief is widely held. Take the example of the Ford Pinto. Many sources will say the Pinto Memo was a cost benefit analysis trading the cost of improved safety for the cost of fighting lawsuits. We have fewer sources that get the actual details of the memo and it's significance to the engineering of teh Pinto right. However, those sources that do are often the ones that provide the most detail and supporting references etc. So do we give more weight to the masses who are simply repeating common knowledge or more weight to the scholars even though they represent a smaller volume of work? Here we have only a few sources (thus far) saying why mass shooters select particular guns. We also have a lot of non-expert opinions. But those can't be considered RS's for the claims being made thus they don't get much/any WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:RS, context matters.
- Weight would dictate here. The article text is getting to motive for using a particular gun. We have experts (as identified by external RSs) stating why the weapons are selected. We don't use lay opinions to balance expert opinions. We aren't saying, "here are reasons sources have proposed for why the rifle is picked". We balance the views of subject matter experts. Currently we don't have many expert views and I'm open to adding more so long as they are expert (RS identified, researcher etc). Springee (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- If indeed that's Wikipedia's policy - that we should represent all views prominent in reliable sources, regardless of the percieved expertise of the author - it nullifies User:Springee's objection entirely, since the viewpoint I attempted to add is far better represented in unquestionably reliable sources than the one currently in the article. Springee, if you disagree that is the policy, can you please point to the wiki policy on experts that supports your position?Waleswatcher (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I find this extremely perplexing as there was no support for this in the past or see any now. WW edit clearly stated "Other experts" the source makes no distinction to this, so that would make it OR. The source included also does not make the distinction "gun choice is because of extreme lethality", further OR.
- WW "if we're going to discuss the **reasons** for why the AR-15 plays such a big role, we must present the mainstream view as well as the alternative view (which was the only one mentioned as it was". What do you claim is the "the alternative view "? Can you provide support for your claimed "mainstream view" supported outside of journalist sensationalism and speculation in the media?
- I assume this is what he is using for this substantial claim.
- journalist James Fallows "What is this gun? Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose?"
- Journalist Tim Dickinson "the AR-15’s emergence as the main implement of mass murder last year"
- This is what a expert on crime and guns looks like, a criminologist on the same footing as Fox, and a 25 year SWAT officer with the job titles Munitions Specialist and Armorer.
Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally.
Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert.
- I would point out your so called balance is covered by the incorrect media speculation weapon of choice, and this is why you have a expert view on choice selection. -72bikers (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I assume this is what he is using for this substantial claim.
- As far as this claim "As others have pointed out, "balance" means representing all viewpoints that are prominent in reliable sources." Your side has repeatly and I mean repeatly denied RS's content with even expert support. Shall I provide the diffs? Slateersteven and Whalewacher have for weeks tried to make this same claim (shall I provide the diffs) that experts recognized were not experts and that then current news cycle (which are no longer being published) journalist sensationalism and speculation were mainstream facts. -72bikers (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please provide the diffs. Please provide them on the appropriate noticeboard or strike the accusation. –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly what are you claiming?-72bikers (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please provide the diffs. Please provide them on the appropriate noticeboard or strike the accusation. –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- As far as this claim "As others have pointed out, "balance" means representing all viewpoints that are prominent in reliable sources." Your side has repeatly and I mean repeatly denied RS's content with even expert support. Shall I provide the diffs? Slateersteven and Whalewacher have for weeks tried to make this same claim (shall I provide the diffs) that experts recognized were not experts and that then current news cycle (which are no longer being published) journalist sensationalism and speculation were mainstream facts. -72bikers (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- "we should represent all views prominent in reliable sources, (regardless of the percieved expertise of the author." This part is nonsense and would speak to contradicting policy.)
- Published Feb. 14, 2018 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:"[65] In the last 35 years 13 mass shooting with the AR-15 specifically. So we are now going to include this as it is extremely relevant to the AR-15 article -72bikers (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or how about this[66] "Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,” "Handguns, particularly semiautomatic ones, were used in 62 percent of all incidents". -72bikers (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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" [67]. -72bikers (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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. [68]. And there are many more-72bikers (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- As to this "These aren't the individual personal opinions of journalists." That is blatantly incorrect a journalist speaking in his own voice are just his opinions unless he is repeating a quantifiable fact supported by data. A substantial claim based on ones views are undue unless this person is recognized as a expert in the area. I find that stating a expert is no different than just some random journalist problematic. I feel confident this view is not supported in any policy and I would ask to present this claim.-72bikers (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- According to the WP:UNDUE policy:
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
WP:BALANCE:"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
–dlthewave ☎ 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)- That's really crystal clear - and I don't see a single word about "experts" anywhere in there. User:Springee, can you salvage your objection in view of wiki policy? If not, we'll need to either delete the material about motivations entirely, or add the mainstream view. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I know the policy, I have repeatedly brought it up when content I have shown like above was being denied from the article. It has nothing to with what WW tried to include into the article. He misrepresented experts as well as made claims the source did not support. So it is unclear how policy has anything to do with the OR issue at hand. -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- WW you basing your policy interpretations on everything editor Dlthewave says is irrelevant, he does not make policy, he does not enforce policies. -72bikers (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @72bikers: That's correct, I do not make or enforce policy. I was quoting a policy at your request. –dlthewave ☎ 01:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I made no request and editor WW is co-signing your words as if they are policy. Perhaps you should speak to that. -72bikers (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @72bikers: You said
"I feel confident this view is not supported in any policy and I would ask to present this claim."
I quoted a policy that, in my opinion, supports my view. I can't speak for Waleswatcher but I assume that they took my words as policy because they are a direct quote of the policy. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)- "WW is co-signing your words as if they are policy." Those words are policy, they are a direct quote, and if we're going to discuss it at all they require that we include the widespread view on why the AR-15 keeps being involved in the deadliest shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @72bikers: You said
- I made no request and editor WW is co-signing your words as if they are policy. Perhaps you should speak to that. -72bikers (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @72bikers: That's correct, I do not make or enforce policy. I was quoting a policy at your request. –dlthewave ☎ 01:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- WW you basing your policy interpretations on everything editor Dlthewave says is irrelevant, he does not make policy, he does not enforce policies. -72bikers (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- We do include the Mayors against guns claim, we do include the claim most mass killings are not wit AR-15's.Slatersteven (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You would seem to believe compiled data and expert analysis needs to be countered with media sensationalism speculation. They are not claims those are facts. The article makes this claim "characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crime" (by the media, which is incorrect) hence you have experts "shooters' gun choices familiarity, copycat effect." The claim that the copycat effect need to be countered with media speculation is nonsense, and they already claim weapon of choice. You are just trying to dredge up a old claim that has already been disproven. You are simply trying to counter content you dislike with much more content you do as stated in the past.-72bikers (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- No I have replied to the points people have made, I did not raise this issue, someone else did. Also (as far as I know) I have never said we should claim these to be facts. As to what I believe, I believe that if policy says "all notable experts" we go with that, if it says "all notable opinions" we go with that. What does policy say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- According to the WP:UNDUE policy:
Edit break 30Sept
Coming back to this. Bearing in mind the crystal-clear wiki policy provided by dlthewave
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
are there any policy-based objections to adding the sentence
The high degree of lethality of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, particularly when used against civilians, may account for their role in so many deadly shootings.
or something to that effect? This is indisputably a "significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable sources", but it's not represented in the article (while another, less prevalent, view is). Waleswatcher (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:DROPIT: This has been addressed as part of a noticeboard discussion as well as here more than once [[69]]. You simply don't like the answer. I've offered a policy based objection and your failure to address it while asking "are there any policy-based objections to adding..." is WP:REHASH (part of WP:TEND). Springee (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your "policy based objection" was that you claim we must quote "experts" (defined by you) - but evidently you simply invented that "policy", since you've repeatedly failed to link to it after being repeatedly asked to. I cannot address a policy that doesn't exist, and appeals to fictitious policies have no weight in these discussions. As for the noticeboard discussion, that was on a different topic. This is related to the material we have already included (the quotes from Hazen etc) and the material we therefore need to include to balance it, as required by the wiki policy I quoted above. If you don't like my proposed wording, please propose an alternative. Or, we could consider simply deleting the Hazen etc comments. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please review 02:47, 27 September 2018. Also please review WP:REHASH as it applies to your behavior here. Springee (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is a pointless forum discussion until there are some citations put the words, and the words check out against the citations, and the citations check out against reliable sources – I'd specifically caution that WP:MEDRS is likely applicable here, I seem to recall that being brought up at WP:RSN before when we were discussing an NYT article that was deemed unsuitable for the claims being cited –, and then further check out against the plethora of policies and guidelines that are going to be cited by the editors that are here. For example
high degree of lethality
is puffery. A bullet to the head is almost always lethal regardless of firearm type or round calibre. Shooting yourself in the foot usually isn't. This is a timesink. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)- This has been explained to you, if you fail accept, so be it. -72bikers (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is a pointless forum discussion until there are some citations put the words, and the words check out against the citations, and the citations check out against reliable sources – I'd specifically caution that WP:MEDRS is likely applicable here, I seem to recall that being brought up at WP:RSN before when we were discussing an NYT article that was deemed unsuitable for the claims being cited –, and then further check out against the plethora of policies and guidelines that are going to be cited by the editors that are here. For example
- Please review 02:47, 27 September 2018. Also please review WP:REHASH as it applies to your behavior here. Springee (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your "policy based objection" was that you claim we must quote "experts" (defined by you) - but evidently you simply invented that "policy", since you've repeatedly failed to link to it after being repeatedly asked to. I cannot address a policy that doesn't exist, and appeals to fictitious policies have no weight in these discussions. As for the noticeboard discussion, that was on a different topic. This is related to the material we have already included (the quotes from Hazen etc) and the material we therefore need to include to balance it, as required by the wiki policy I quoted above. If you don't like my proposed wording, please propose an alternative. Or, we could consider simply deleting the Hazen etc comments. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The current version fails to cover all significant viewpoints, which is unacceptable. That is why this is being discussed. Since we can't read the shooters' minds, we only have theories to explain why they chose a particular weapon, and policy requires that we present all of the prominent theories. –dlthewave ☎ 14:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. We have no RS showing alternative views. Remember that we already covered why lay opinions aren't sufficient on this case. In short we don't have other "significant" points of view. Springee (talk) 15:30, 30 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: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- As I pointed out before, Wikipedia's Lethality article is about an entirely different topic. –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 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)
List of mass shootings
Not sure we rally need this.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Are you referring to:
AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history,[64] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[65] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[65] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)- If you are referring to that I'd suggest it's relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that is what I am referring to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Simonm223, those are all extremely notable events in which the use of AR-15 style rifles got a lot of coverage. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I am not sure we need a list, or come to that a line that may well end up out of date the next mass shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure that somebody watching this page will update it if that happens. I, of course, hope against hope it will not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is why the MOS usually expects us to edit in past tense.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, that's a do-able edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I do have a question. There are six of these mass shootings, yet we are naming five. Why? what's the sixth. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I seem to recall either I or someone else made a very similar point a while ago. Another reason to remove the list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Waleswatcher: what's the one you're missing? Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd have to go back and check (too busy right now), but it's probably the Pulse nightclub shooting. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, please insert ASAP. I disagree with removing this piece as I think it's notable and due, but I agree that it shouldn't be incomplete if it's up. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The SIG MCX is not an AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OK will do later, or someone else can. For now one link just in case, which says "each SIG MCX features an aluminum KeyMod handguard, AR-style lower controls and polymer magazines", and lists the mag type as "AR-15". Slatersteven, it is according to its manufacturer (at least it has an AR style lower receiver and magazine), see that link. There are many other sources that also characterize it as AR-style. Anyway I'm not even certain it's the Pulse shooting that's missing, I have to check later. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- And it will get reverted by someone [[76]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes misrepresenting the facts is not ok. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The controls and pistol grip are AR familiar, similarities are mainly cosmetic. The operating system is similar to an AK, the bolt and recoil system is a serious departure from anything else, you can swap barrels in under a minute with a quick-change barrel, the buttstock folds to the side. It is not marketed as a AR and reviews in the industry do not consider it a AR style rifle. It has more in common with a AK than a AR being that the resemblance with the AR are superficial. -72bikers (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes misrepresenting the facts is not ok. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- And it will get reverted by someone [[76]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, please insert ASAP. I disagree with removing this piece as I think it's notable and due, but I agree that it shouldn't be incomplete if it's up. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd have to go back and check (too busy right now), but it's probably the Pulse nightclub shooting. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Waleswatcher: what's the one you're missing? Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I seem to recall either I or someone else made a very similar point a while ago. Another reason to remove the list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I do have a question. There are six of these mass shootings, yet we are naming five. Why? what's the sixth. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, that's a do-able edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is why the MOS usually expects us to edit in past tense.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure that somebody watching this page will update it if that happens. I, of course, hope against hope it will not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I am not sure we need a list, or come to that a line that may well end up out of date the next mass shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Simonm223, those are all extremely notable events in which the use of AR-15 style rifles got a lot of coverage. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that is what I am referring to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- If you are referring to that I'd suggest it's relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
5 or 6
A source cannot have said both, this smacks of OR. The source lists 6 shootings, but many subsequent stories contradict the claim the Orlando shooting was with an AR-15. This needs a serious rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you may be getting tripped by "not an AR-15" and "not an AR-15 style rifle". Most of these weren't AR-15s. Sandy Hook was a Bushmaster rifle, San Bernadino and Stoneman Douglas were M&P-15s, and Las Vegas was a dozen or more different rifles. I think that the Sutherland Springs shooting was the only one that involved, or rather was stopped by, an AR-15 specifically. I don't know enough about firearms to make a comment on whether the SiG MCX constitutes a AR-15 style rifle, and based on the BI article you linked, it seems the link might be a bit tenuous. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- except that most (all the ones I have looked at) are specifically described (and marketed to a degree) as AR-15's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- It makes sense to include reference to these major shooting events involving AR-15s. I'm 100% OK with a rewrite as long as we capture the information. But to avoid OR, how about we change it back to six (per the source) and then state including: x, x, x, x, x - that way the missing one is noted in absence but we aren't contradicting the source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Because that makes no sense, we say 6 and list 5. If we include this it must be what it is, as an opinion and not a fact. But then we also need to explain the discrepancy as well, and that is too much detail. This is far to complex to do Justice to in what should be one paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The SIG MCX uses the AK Operating System. -72bikers (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- It sounds as if you are attempting to shoehorn the MCX into a AR. Unlike other MS that state when a AR style was used the nightclub simply states Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle. -72bikers (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'd suggest perfect is the enemy of good here. We have a start. We can improve it. We don't need to purge the whole sentence, which is reliably sourced, just to do that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- And we're not trying to shoe-horn anything. Just to report the statements of reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I checked the source and it does list Orlando as the sixth shooting. So yes, Pulse is the one. As for whether the Sig Sauer counts, we have a reliable source that says yes. If you want for WP:BALANCE you could include a statement from another reliable source saying "but X says the firearm in the Pulse shooting was not AR-15 style." Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Even articles that are demeaning to the rifle state
"It’s important to note that the Sig MCX is not technically an AR-15 variant. The guts of the Sig MCX are different from those of the standard AR-15 platform"
. -72bikers (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)- We should say (as we have a contested claim) "according to X".16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Journalist generally do not have any knowledge of firearms. So if a few journalist have stated the MCX is a AR its just a uneducated opinion. I do not believe repeating ignorance is beneficial to an encyclopedia and its readers. It would also appear as grasping of straws to keep the distinction of the filtered claim weapon of choice. -72bikers (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I believe the claim stems from the Florida Police.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- How much you believe Journalists know about the minutia of gun manufacture is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- And for us to consider the claim to be contested first we need a RS that contests that claim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- [[77]], [[78]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd question using the Blaze as a WP:RS but the NBC source is righteous. I suppose we could say "and the Pulse Nightclub shooting (ref) - though this is contested as, while the Orlando Police described the weapon as an AR-15 style weapon, the manufacturer disagrees." Again I find all this hair-splitting a bit silly. This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Neither the business insider, nor CNBC are either NBC or the blaze.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wow this statement "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour" just speaks to a condemning bias to firearms. Some of use feel that actual facts matter. -72bikers (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Sig MCX may look like an AR-15, but they are extremely different. Afootpluto (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The business insider article is a re-print of an article from the Blaze from what I saw. That said, I've no problem with the second source. And my personal opinions about firearms are neither here nor there and I'd kindly appreciate if 72bikers would avoid casting aspersions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Neither the business insider, nor CNBC are either NBC or the blaze.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd question using the Blaze as a WP:RS but the NBC source is righteous. I suppose we could say "and the Pulse Nightclub shooting (ref) - though this is contested as, while the Orlando Police described the weapon as an AR-15 style weapon, the manufacturer disagrees." Again I find all this hair-splitting a bit silly. This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- [[77]], [[78]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- And for us to consider the claim to be contested first we need a RS that contests that claim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- How much you believe Journalists know about the minutia of gun manufacture is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I believe the claim stems from the Florida Police.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Journalist generally do not have any knowledge of firearms. So if a few journalist have stated the MCX is a AR its just a uneducated opinion. I do not believe repeating ignorance is beneficial to an encyclopedia and its readers. It would also appear as grasping of straws to keep the distinction of the filtered claim weapon of choice. -72bikers (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- We should say (as we have a contested claim) "according to X".16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Even articles that are demeaning to the rifle state
- I checked the source and it does list Orlando as the sixth shooting. So yes, Pulse is the one. As for whether the Sig Sauer counts, we have a reliable source that says yes. If you want for WP:BALANCE you could include a statement from another reliable source saying "but X says the firearm in the Pulse shooting was not AR-15 style." Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- And we're not trying to shoe-horn anything. Just to report the statements of reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'd suggest perfect is the enemy of good here. We have a start. We can improve it. We don't need to purge the whole sentence, which is reliably sourced, just to do that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- It sounds as if you are attempting to shoehorn the MCX into a AR. Unlike other MS that state when a AR style was used the nightclub simply states Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle. -72bikers (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The SIG MCX uses the AK Operating System. -72bikers (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Because that makes no sense, we say 6 and list 5. If we include this it must be what it is, as an opinion and not a fact. But then we also need to explain the discrepancy as well, and that is too much detail. This is far to complex to do Justice to in what should be one paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- It makes sense to include reference to these major shooting events involving AR-15s. I'm 100% OK with a rewrite as long as we capture the information. But to avoid OR, how about we change it back to six (per the source) and then state including: x, x, x, x, x - that way the missing one is noted in absence but we aren't contradicting the source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- except that most (all the ones I have looked at) are specifically described (and marketed to a degree) as AR-15's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why are we discussing this again? This was discussed at both WP:NPOVN [[79]] and [[80]]. As Nightshift32 said in the NPOV discussion
Pretty definitive. Business Insider also reports this [2]. CNBC says "But not all recent mass shootings involve the AR-15 or its variants. The massacre of 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, for instance, was carried out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a semi-automatic rifle that is internally distinct from the AR-15, despite its similar look." [3]. Tampa Bay Times [4].
- links are live in the archived links. 6 is not correct which is why the article said 5. Springee (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- If there's an article that says 5 of the last 10 instead of 6 of the last 10 and if 6 is incorrect can we just update to the correct source and say 5 of the last 10? This is getting kafkaesque. There's no good reason to exclude the highly over-represented frequency of this gun type in extreme mass shootings from the page just because the LA times quoted a police department that disagreed with the categorization of a firearm from the marketing department of the manufacturer. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- We have RSs that say the 6 of 10 is wrong since one isn't an AR-15. That fact isn't in dispute. It's not in dispute that the Orlando shooter used an MCX. MCX != AR-15 so any reasonable editor can see the specific claim is wrong. However, the other 5 crimes verifiable used an AR-15 type rifle. We can either throw out the entire source due to the fact that it has a verifiable error or we can WP:IAR and use the source to back the 5 of 10 and perhaps add a note to the citation explaining the error. Springee (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Are there more than just this one source supporting this claim? I would point out the source does not explicitly state AR rifles have been used in 6 of the ten deadliest shootings. Also why would there be a source disputing a fictitious claim if no one reported it to begin with. -72bikers (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Multiple essential elements (lower receiver, controls, magazine) of the Sig MCX are AR-15 style, according to its own manufacturer. That suffices to make the Sig an AR-15 style rifle according to various reliable secondary sources, and that's obviously a reasonable and defensible position. Other secondary sources disagree, also reasonably. It's a matter of opinion, since "AR-15 style" is not defined. So, either we change the wording ("AR-15 style or similar rifles" for instance) or just mention that the Pulse shooting was with a rifle some regard as not AR-15 style. What's the big deal here? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- What are you basing this on "Multiple essential elements"? Your track record on such matters are anything but stellar. The manufacturer and the industry does not make any claim to the MCX being a AR style rifle.
- The big deal would be you are trying to use this to claim weapon of choice when all facts actually contradict. -72bikers (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is a kind of Synthesis, do the manufactures call it an AR-15 style rifle? As I have suggested the easiest way is to attribute this claim to the source, then it does not matter if it is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- The source is factually wrong. When we have sources that are shown to be wrong we typically throw them out. We don't include there information as correct when we know it isn't. Why are we even having this discussion now given it was addressed months back? Springee (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is a matter of perspective, what makes a rifle an AR-15 style rifle? I think we can say it is contested, not that it is incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Similar, yes. But not the same. The fact that the operating mechanism is very different makes it not the same. The ignorance of the reporter isn't a reason to ignore the error. Springee (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is a matter of perspective, what makes a rifle an AR-15 style rifle? I think we can say it is contested, not that it is incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- The source is factually wrong. When we have sources that are shown to be wrong we typically throw them out. We don't include there information as correct when we know it isn't. Why are we even having this discussion now given it was addressed months back? Springee (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Multiple essential elements (lower receiver, controls, magazine) of the Sig MCX are AR-15 style, according to its own manufacturer. That suffices to make the Sig an AR-15 style rifle according to various reliable secondary sources, and that's obviously a reasonable and defensible position. Other secondary sources disagree, also reasonably. It's a matter of opinion, since "AR-15 style" is not defined. So, either we change the wording ("AR-15 style or similar rifles" for instance) or just mention that the Pulse shooting was with a rifle some regard as not AR-15 style. What's the big deal here? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why is this being discussed again? This was discussed months back. Why are we revisiting the question? Springee (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK then we stick with the edit that was agreed six months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:IAR and use the source to back the 5 of 10 and perhaps add a note to the citation explaining the error.
This solution is 100% something I would support. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)- OK, I support adding a footnote saying that the article said 6 by including the MCX as one of the 6. That footnote can then cite sources saying the MCX is similar but not an AR-15 style rifle. Springee (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I also support this solution without reservation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I support adding a footnote saying that the article said 6 by including the MCX as one of the 6. That footnote can then cite sources saying the MCX is similar but not an AR-15 style rifle. Springee (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Which source would we be using for this? "5 out of ten" is currently sourced to LA Times which does indeed list five shootings, however their list includes Orlando and excludes Parkland {Stoneman Douglas). –dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- We use the LAT source but we WP:IAR, report 5 of 6 then include a footnote saying the Orlando shooting used an MCX. We could say that it was initially reported as using an AR-15 but that was later corrected. I think last time we discussed this we said the LAT article established why we would report this particular time period and "of 10" vs "of 12" or "x in the last 10 years" or what ever. Springee (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It includes Parkland in the text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have come across this source [81] The Washington Post. They do a pretty good job clarifying the weapon of use.
- "On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle."
- "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles."
- "points out, the MCX is a modular rifle designed to be able to change between a variety of calibers and “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form." -72bikers (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- CNBC [82] They state MCX is not a AR-15 and do speak of other shootings that did use AR's but still not a list like LA Times.
- The Business Insider [83] states not a AR, they also state that this shooting was a terrorist attack. They also state that because of the error first reported by the police was the reason many publication reported AR.
- The Blaze [84] "Islamic State-supporting killer" and "It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an “AR-15-style assault rifle” and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping “style” from the description."
- The Mother Jones list also states just semi-automatic rifle SIG MCX as apposed to the other semi-automatics rifle stating AR-15 when AR's were used.
- There are many other most deadly lists and while one or two mentions of guns used none make the distinction like the LA Times with AR-15 uses. So while being incorrect they also lack any support from any other publication. -72bikers (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)