Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 4

keeping sourced
In order to help us wrap up the discussion started under "removing unsourced," I am providing the following as an aide to help our discussion. Re: the 1 min, 36 sec, video clipped by an anonymous editor from the longer Dec. 21, 2012, C-SPAN video "Senators Feinstein and Blumenthal React to NRA." I created this transcript:


 * Q: Senator [Feinstein], when you talked about the state of the art in the weaponry out there: I believe your bill does not call for any confiscation of weapons that have already been out there, so other than stopping people from buying new ones, if there's already too much access to these weapons, as you say, what would the effect be?
 * Feinstein: A good question and I thank you for it.
 * What we're looking at now is placing these weapons under the [National] Firearms Act, the same act that exists for automatic weapons. Since there are now devices to make them legally automatic, it seems to me that it is prudent to place them under the [National] Firearms Act, and this would require that they be registered, their owners have a background check. It's inconceivable after what the NRA said to me today that they don't think people who have guns should have background checks or that they should be registered. We are also looking at a buy-back program. Now, again, this is a work in progress, so these are ideas in the development.
 * Q: The people who already own them would have to register?
 * Feinstein: They would have to register their military-style assault weapons. [pause] Well, they'd be put under the provisions of the [National] Firearms Act. I'm sure you can read the act and you can see what that is.
 * Q: The people who already own them would have to register?
 * Feinstein: They would have to register their military-style assault weapons. [pause] Well, they'd be put under the provisions of the [National] Firearms Act. I'm sure you can read the act and you can see what that is.
 * Feinstein: They would have to register their military-style assault weapons. [pause] Well, they'd be put under the provisions of the [National] Firearms Act. I'm sure you can read the act and you can see what that is.
 * Feinstein: They would have to register their military-style assault weapons. [pause] Well, they'd be put under the provisions of the [National] Firearms Act. I'm sure you can read the act and you can see what that is.

I added the italics to emphasize the date (Dec. 21) and early-talks nature of these statements. Next, the first (and only) paragraph of the Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill currently reads (again, with italics for emphasis here, for this discussion):


 * On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The bill was similar to the 1994 ban, but differed in that it used a one-feature test for a firearm to qualify as an assault weapon rather than the two-feature test of the 1994 ban, and required registration of any grandfathered weapons under the National Firearms Act. It received enhanced media attention in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting but on April 17, 2013, the bill failed on a Senate vote of 60 to 40.
 * The statement in question is "and required registration of any grandfathered weapons under the National Firearms Act." Prior to the addition of this statement, the sources given (the THOMAS text of the bill, introduced on Jan. 24, and the Richard Simon story dated April 17) supported the information. The insertion of the statement makes it look like the bill as introduced included a requirement that grandfathered weapons be registered under the NFA. I will re-write the paragraph to make it clear that such a requirement was part of preliminary discussions that pre-dated the introduction of the bill.


 * I agree that this needs to be clarified. In its current state, it is unambiguously inaccurate.Anastrophe (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anastrophe. I don't think you've weighed in on whether or not this information merits inclusion in this article. I've expressed my opinion, as have others. Would you mind? Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * boldy update in the article with a tweaked version of my suggested wording above, whihc I believe is 100% accurate to the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. Added info to put it in context and moved all to second paragraph. Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The large contextual addition includes quite a bit of information unrelated to either assault weapons, or the failed bill. Only the last sentence of the graf is directly relevant to the topic and the proposed legislation.Anastrophe (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, sources have been removed from the content. Why? And lastly, one of the references lists "editor=Anonymous user". ??? Anastrophe (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the information merits inclusion, it's relevant to the topic. Anastrophe (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Gaijin. I see your BRD to my BRD. I have some errands to run, so I am going to ponder a bit, but I did want to ask about your edit summary (partial): "alternate proposal is not relevant to assault weapons." What were you referring to that seemed irrelevant? Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically that the NRA proposed putting arm guards in schools is not relevant to the topic of assault weapons, or the specific subsection of the 2013 law. Although certainly the feinstein press conference is a response to the NRA conference, the law itself was not, and there were many calls for the law, and discussion from feinstein about her moving forward with a new law prior the the NRA conference.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like we've BRD'd the NFA idea back in, but just to wrap up, I didn't mention and haven't mentioned the NRA proposal. Lightbreather (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The NRA proposal has nothing to do with the law and does not need to be included. Fineswine's proposal was actually proposed as a part of the new law, so it should be included.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Illinois proposal of Jan. 2013
I made this change earlier today, and it was reverted here... with edit summary "Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill" (?)

I do not see how the sources cited support the statement as written.


 * BEFORE/REVERTED TO: In Illinois, proposed legislation in 2013 would have defined the term "assault weapon" even more broadly to mean any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine, which would have included the majority of all firearms.
 * MY EDIT: In Illinois, legislation proposed in January 2013 would have defined the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" to mean any semi-automatic firearm able to accept a detachable magazine. The Illinois Rifle Association said most of the state's firearms owners owned one or more guns that would have been banned under the proposal. The NRA said the proposal would have restricted about 50 percent of handguns and 75 percent of long guns in circulation.
 * MY EDIT: In Illinois, legislation proposed in January 2013 would have defined the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" to mean any semi-automatic firearm able to accept a detachable magazine. The Illinois Rifle Association said most of the state's firearms owners owned one or more guns that would have been banned under the proposal. The NRA said the proposal would have restricted about 50 percent of handguns and 75 percent of long guns in circulation.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Need to fix or replace this citation
I tried to update the source citation for this statement, but it was reverted. Perhaps I didn't do it right, but the source, as cited, does not support the statement, which reads:

"While assault weapons are legal in most of Illinois, they are banned in Chicago..." And here is the source: "". If we're going to cite the code itself - which is not my strong suit - the correct source is Article II, Section 075 "Possession of assault weapons". I also found two easier to read sources:



It's the last sentence in the Differing state law definitions section. Help? If no-one else fixes it, I will take another stab at it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know the particulars on that one, but for neutral and accurate wording, when discussing a ban it should refer to assault weapons as defined by the ban, not use the term as if it was a type of defined firearm outside of the context of what a particular law defined as an "assault weapon", i.e. not putting that (false) assertion in the voice of Wikipedia. . North8000 (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That source page uses a weird formatting mechanism. I discovered that one has to click on the little yellow bookmark icon that's immediately to the left of the specific entry you're after. That pops up a dialogue box with the actual static link to use. I fixed it. You weren't being reverted, it's that the formatting engine doesn't rewrite the urls of subsections even when you're looking right at them. Anastrophe (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose improving lead per WP:BETTER and WP:LEAD
I would like to propose editing the article lead to better adhere to the guidelines in WP:LEAD and the good advice in WP:BETTER.

A good start would be to consider the First sentence content section of WP:BETTER. It says: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: 'What (or who) is the subject?' and 'Why is this subject notable?'"

Our article currently begins with this one-sentence paragraph: "Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms, and that has differing meanings, usages and purposes."

That answers the what-is-the-subject question, but not the why-is-it-notable. The "why" doesn't come until three paragraphs later.

So, proposal #1 is to move fourth paragraph to end of first sentence/paragraph like this:


 * Assault weapon is a U.S. political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms, and that has differing meanings, usages and purposes. Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate. As a political and legal term, it is controversial.

I removed the adverb "highly." (The article in general would be improved by removing adverbs like "highly," "only," "heavily," etc., IMHO.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I like it. Anastrophe (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this change is also fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anastrophe and Gaijin. I am going to do it, and if others have a question, they can bring it here. Lightbreather (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

purpose of features
It is a violation of WP:NPOV to state opinions of VPC and the brady group as objective neutral descriptions of the features, and particularly do it in wikipedias voice. We can certainly say what these groups claim, but we must attribute those statements to them. I am removing the next as a violation of WP:NPOV until consensus on wording and neutrality can be established. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1311/S00349/time-to-recognise-pistol-grips-as-safety-feature.htm
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=z44wAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA451&dq=%22hip+fire%22+pistol+grip&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HG-nUpOMM9TdoAT8xYH4DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22hip%20fire%22%20pistol%20grip&f=false
 * Discussion of the Browing machine gun being specifically designed WITHOUT a pistol grip, to aid in firing from the hip (see image below)
 * http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/FN%20120308/ValBrowning.jpg
 * http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/walkingfire.jpg
 * compare to this (super high quality ;) ) illustration of attempting to hip fire with a pistol grip. http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-14/f2314101.gif

Now, certainly not trying to claim that we should not present the gun control proponents claims - merely that we need to document them AS claims, and we need to present the opposite view as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaijin, just in case you missed it. I did NOT give the Brady Campaign as a source. I DID give the Violence Policy Center, and the other source was the CQ Researcher - a neutral source. Lightbreather (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, besides NPOV, I don't think that it is informative to include what firearm opponents say could be done it it / them.   Like saying that a Ford automobile has an undercarrige which would make it useful easy to run over large amounts of people in a crowd.   North8000  (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As one element of WP:NPOV if we are going to include the Brady and VPC opinions, the obvious counterpoint would be the NRA. http://www.nraila.org/gunbanfacts-content/faq/what-are-the-purposes.aspx?s=pistol+grip&st=&ps= Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-hallmarks-assault-weapons.htm#page=5
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=0uXNTS3JIoAC&pg=PA24&dq=pistol+grip+rifle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZmSnUrKpGMmRrQHtjoCYBA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pistol%20grip%20rifle&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=T4xzfqUdm7EC&pg=PA28&dq=pistol+grip+stock+height&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VnunUqLjDYjwoASU74Fo&ved=0CE8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=pistol%20grip%20stock%20height&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=9ns7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202&dq=%22pistol+grip%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S3-nUvHHM4jYoASc2ICYDA&ved=0CHYQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22pistol%20grip%22&f=false
 * I did NOT give the Brady Campaign as a source. I gave the Violence Policy Center, and the CQ Researcher (a neutral source). Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Or say take a look at any picture of an olympic biathalon shooter, using their nifty pistol grip rifle. Clearly those are people who like to spray fire from the hip, and don't have incentives to use the most accurate and ergonomic design possible. https://www.google.com/search?q=biathlon&rlz=1C1OPRB_enUS508US508&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=TYSnUpOJI8neoASM9oDYDA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=2133&bih=1105&dpr=0.9 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled the "Attributes" section at the bottom of the article until it can be rendered neutral. Currently it is wildly POV and is not appropriate for the article. Anastrophe (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please enable the section and I will add language that clarifies that the uses given are from gun-control sources. Lightbreather (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We need more than attribution, we need a neutral presentation. We can list the attributes in the law without description, but if we include opinions about those descriptions we need to include both POVs. We should build consensus on that wording prior to including the section, otherwise we are only going to be presenting one POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to edit the disabled section. However, it should not be enabled until it has at least some semblance of NPOV. It's not adequate to merely clarify that the sources are all pro-control. It'll still be overtly POV even with such an identification. It will approach NPOV when it provides a point/counter-point structure at minimum. Better would be to remove all such commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO we should only state the obvious intended purposes (only where such exist) and leave everything else out. We can skip the whole mess of deciding which POV conjectures to put in.  North8000  (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to give it a shot. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Gaijin et al: Just to be clear, I did NOT give the Brady Campaign as a source. I DID give the Violence Policy Center, and the other source was the CQ Researcher - a neutral source. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: How does one SEE a disabled section? Lightbreather (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone find a better source than LearnAboutGuns.com. Its home page says: "Welcome to LearnAboutGuns.com! This web site is dedicated to preserving the individual right of law abiding citizens to possess firearms for self defense as well as sporting purposes. I created this site after recognizing the growing threat to our right to keep and bear arms, and hope to both dispel the myths surrounding guns and “gun crime,” as well as to provide useful information to those who already support firearms rights."

So, if using the VPC and the CQ Researcher results in a "wildly POV" description of an attributes purpose/use, it certainly must be inappropriate to use LearnAboutGuns, with its stated objective and its prominent advertisement for Eric D. Puryear, Attorney at Law, as the sole source for the "purpose" of a barrel shroud. (From the way that citation is written: Is Puryear ALSO the creator of the LearnAboutGuns website?!) Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Barrel shroud" is a good example. It is clearly to protect the user against the heat of the barrel. And leave out any conjecture beyond that.  North8000  (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you, North. What I'm asking about is the quality of the source. LearnAboutGuns is pro-gun and promotional. We need sources that nonspecialist readers can reference. High-quality, neutral sources, or pro-gun vs. gun-control sources, if necessary. Even an official .MIL source would be better than LearnAboutGuns, IMHO, even though it would be primary, and about military weapons. Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on or talking about the source used.  But it is going off on a tangent to start talking about applying "for further reading" objectives to sources. We're here to create the content in the article; sourc4es are to fulfill the letter and intent of the wp:verifiability requirement. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have re-enabled the "Attributes" section, without the objected-to material. I am going out of town on a business trip for a few days, and I'll come back to see if there is any further discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the reliance on a single primary source. All but one feature has its own article, so it's unnecessary to include editorial explanations. I've removed the wording "and their uses", because the text relied upon the wording from the primary sources to suggest that their uses are what the law says that they are, rather than making clear that it is the disparity between what the law says, and what the common usage is, that is a matter of contention on the issue of what defines an assault weapon. e.g. - a law could state that a barrel shroud is used to conceal the barrel - but that would not alter what the actual purpose of a barrel shroud is (to prevent burns). Anastrophe (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A good move I think. Trying to define uses has turned into a POV fest.  North8000  (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC).


 * I have undone that edit, assuming good faith. Our job on this article isn't to present only what pro-gun sources say an assault weapon is, or to take a side on who is right or wrong about what an assault weapon is. If you want more sources for an attribute's purpose or use, we should provide them. (I have more.) Since there is debate about what makes an assault weapon and an assault weapon, then we should describe those  that in an NPOV manner and let the reader decide what to make of it.
 * If a reader types "assault weapon" into a search box, then we should give her or him these details - but not all in the lead. Again, if there is controversy, we describe the controversy... we don't just remove the controversial parts, or the parts that only support one POV. Lightbreather (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I object to the reversion. The source is almost exclusively the text of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a primary source. This article isn't about only the FAWB, and it's misleading to suggest, for example, that magazines over ten rounds are the objective truth about what features are commonly used in assault weapon definitions, since other capacities are used in different jurisdictions. It is POV to only provide usage information from the FAWB. By removing all subjective usage, the list is explicitly NPOV since there is no reliance on a law's wording. The section at issue is not about the debate, it is a simple list of features commonly used in assault weapon definitions. I don't understand the mention of the lede - we're not talking about the lede. The specific details are within the body of the article. Please undo your reversion. The section is now specifically POV, and reliant only on a primary source. It's a step backwards in accuracy and objectivity. Anastrophe (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I strenuously object to simply "removing all subjective usage." This article is not about a simple, objective term that everyone agrees with; it's about a controversial legal and political term. We can't give readers a thorough understanding of a controversial subject by avoiding or removing the controversy. As for the 10-rounds issue, until just a few days ago, this section was about attributes in AWB 1994. (I don't know if you or I or another editor changed that. Perhaps you did when you added "commonly used" to the section title?) But I can provide sources that use the common greater-than-10-rounds language, if you wish.
 * Here's a link to how it looked one week ago. (Note that this section was about the 1994 ban, had only a few citations - and a call specifically for a source for one purpose.)
 * Here's how it looked after I added information (including citation) that were objected to. (Note that the section was still about the 1994 ban, and that the source I added answered the other editor's call.)
 * Here's how it looked after five days of the BRD process.
 * I think that last is a good version to keep for now, and continue discussion if necessary... except now I am going to have supper with my family, so I will check back in later or tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My point seems to be missed. All of the features listed are described in greater detail elsewhere in the article. There is no 'remov[al] of all subjective usage, it is maintaining a simple list of many features that are commonly used when people or laws refer to "assault weapons". I don't recall whether I removed mention of the FAWB in the section title, but since this article is about "Assault Weapons", and the FAWB is not the only assault weapons ban that has existed in the past or that exists now, it is appropriate that it not cleave strictly to the FAWB's definitions. My point is apparently also missed regarding magazine capacity limits. Some assault weapons bans specify different capacities - I believe the NY ban specifies seven rounds. It's silly to reiterate details that are explained earlier in the article - this is one of the problems we have been addressing, is the inappropriate ordering and redundant information that tends to grow organically over time, as WP articles are never 'finished', nor are they but rarely written top-down. A simple list of the various features commonly mentioned should be kept simple. It shouldn't include just one POV, as it does now. Ultimately, I don't think it adds anything useful to the article, as the listed features have already been discussed in the article. But as it stands now, it's inaccurate, misleading, and POV, so it should not be published at all until it is fixed. Anastrophe (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anastrophe, I started a new section as this one was getting lengthy and hard to navigate, but I did want to say, when I said that I objected to "removing all subjective usage," I was responding to your comment, "By removing all subjective usage, the list is explicitly NPOV..." (Also, I assume we were both talking about the Attributes list, and not about the whole article.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I also strenuously object to this statement: "Our job on this article isn't to present only what pro-gun sources say an assault weapon is, or to take a side on who is right or wrong about what an assault weapon is." Nowhere did my edit, or my comments, suggest that we should or are presenting only what "pro-gun" sources say, nor did my edit or commentary take sides on who is right or wrong. Attaching that sentence implies that my motives were suspect on that basis. Please strike. Anastrophe (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit summary said "Undid GOOD FAITH edit..." and I repeated that sentiment above. I'm sorry you were offended, but no offense was intended. We are editing a controversial subject, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please address the substantive problems with the content that I brought up. As it stands, the section is unacceptable for publication, as it relies with one exception on a primary sources, and the POV of that primary source, as well as introducing factual inaccuracies by reliance only on that source (10 round limit). The section should be disabled until it is corrected for the inaccuracies, and either includes more than one POV (as it does now), or includes no POV. The latter is preferable - the details of the debate are within the body of the article, there's no need for them in this simple list of commonly used features that are used for the definition. Anastrophe (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was/am writing my response. Please give me time! Lightbreather (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could just skip to it and say that all of the features are there to murder large amounts of innocent children. But seriously, I think that either a list with no purposes, or a list with the bare-bones widely accepted-as-being-purposes purposes would be OK. And I expect the former that will be only stable way. Anything beyond that, not.  North8000  (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Purposes of features, part 2
My point seems to be missed. The argument that features in the Attributes section are described in greater detail elsewhere in the article is untrue. They are mentioned numerous times, and Wikilinked too, but not described. Some might argue that readers who want to know more about their purposes should follow the WLs. That might work, if those articles were complete and to-the-point, but they're not... at least when it comes to a simple description of purposes (including controversial ones) that a nonspecialist reader can find and understand.


 * Detachable magazine redirects to Magazine - a LONG article whose LAST section is U.S. Legislation - with no mention of why any magazines are or were banned.
 * Stock links to a LONG article. The last section is Legal issues. There is no mention of why the kinds of stocks mentioned in bans are or were included in the bans.
 * The pistol grip article is a stub.
 * Bayonet lug (mount) is a stub.
 * The lead paragraph of the flash suppressor article might help a nonspecialist reader - who reads at the 18th-grade level.
 * The grenade launcher article has one source, and does not mention the National Firearms Act or Title II.
 * Barrel shroud is a stub - and uses that Second-Amendment-Absolutist's website LearnAboutGuns as one of only two sources. (That guy advertises his law practice on that site!)

The Attributes section has been in this article since at least January 1. Like the rest of the article, it is inconsistently sourced, but it had at least some brief descriptions of purpose of the features listed. It does no reader any good to simply re-list them without the descriptions. Nor, since they are mentioned in several sections and the article is already redundant on other descriptions, will it help to describe them every time they are mentioned. I will say again what I said yesterday that no-one responded to:

This article is not about a simple, objective term that everyone agrees with; it's about a controversial legal and political term. We can't give readers a thorough understanding of a controversial subject by avoiding or removing the controversy.
 * Here's a link to how the article looked one week ago.
 * Here's how it looked after five days of the BRD process.

Let's continue to discuss and improve. I am open to compromise, but not just removing the section, as explained in "My point" above. One idea: How about we put it in a tabular format? 1st column, name of feature; 2nd (brief) pro-gun-approved purpose/use; 3rd (brief) gun-control-position purpose/use. Then move the table to the end of the Politics section or to the top of the Laws section? Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the current descriptions are limited to the more straightforward ones that most would agree on and so IMHO it's not so bad as is. But I think that it makes it vulnerable to becoming a POV magnet/coatrack / POV fest.   North8000  (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One particular concern I had with the previous version is that the CQ source had basic facts about the descriptions wrong. Im not talking about pro/con arguments, but just plain factually wrong. For example it discussed barrel shrouds in the context of assault rifles. 1) assault rifles are a completely different topic than assault weapons. 2) assault weapons that are pistols have a barrel shroud issue/legislation, assault weapons that are rifles generally ALL have an extended stock/shroud, and are not subject to any legislation. There were several other basic errors like this - this type of problem is endemic of sources written by non-experts that are repeating talking points (on either side of the argument), as that describes the vast majority of sources discussing this topic (again on both sides) fleshing out this section is excessively problematic (which doesn't even touch on the NPOV issue of actually getting to the pro/con arguments in a neutral manner.) The problem with the tabular suggestion (in addition to wikipedias preference for prose)  I see is that there are two levels of argument 1) what each side says the feature is for 2) the reasons why the other side's description is wrong.  That makes for a very complex table. You could possibly re-word #2 as #1, but we are probably going to run in to WP:OR WP:SYNTH etc to do so. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with expansion to include multiple interpretations of what the purpose of features are considered to be by various factions. I have a significant problem with having the VPC's definitions pushed into the article without the other 'side' being represented at all. As it was recently, it was a pure POV fest, with no effort expended by the editor who added the information to attempt to keep it balanced or NPOV. In other words, it was a blatant POV content push, falling under WP:CRUSH.Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We should stick to items which have agreement as being straightforward statements of function. Arguments disguised as "functions" should remain out.  North8000  (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I linked to this before (yesterday, I think), but in case anyone missed it: We are editing an article about a controversial subject; please don't shoot the messenger. I think this article could use a little fleshing out of the gun-control POV. I am not trying to push that POV, but to present at least some of it. There is a lot in the article that's neutral, and there's quite a lot of the pro-gun POV, but there is little about the gun-control POV. In fact, when I started actively editing here - a week ago? - there was a discussion in progress about removing one of the few pro-gun POV points (about the origins of the term "assault weapon") that was in the article. That simple clause, "while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself in the 1980s," was about to get axed - or so it seemed, and now there is talk of removing a section that could help nonspecialists readers understand why pro-gun and gun-control disagree about the purpose/use of features that appear in bans.

So, to reiterate. I am NOT here to push a POV. I AM here to make sure that each POV is given due weight. Assuming y'all are here for the same reason, then we ought to be able to work together to make this a better article. Having added a counterpoint to the pro-gun, Josh Sugarmann started it position with the gun-control the-gun-industry started it position, I'm fairly satisfied with how we're representing that debate for now. Assuming we don't axe the Attributes section, or turn it into a simple list of attributes without the purposes or uses, but develop it into something that briefly and fairly presents that debate - OK. That leaves the proposal I made last week (see Propose improving lead per WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:BETTER, but first... of 10 DEC 2013). I think if we do that, we can get rid of a lot of redundant info, which is really clogging up this article's readability. Can we work on that? Lightbreather (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Lightbreather, underlying this all, we have to remember that this is an article about a term (with massively varying definitions) not about any specific type of firearm. And where one of the definitions is created by a law or proposed law, then the "definition" portion / aspect of that law or proposed law needs to be covered.  But this is not the article about past, present or proposed laws or the gun control debate in general.  I think that it should remain a pretty straightforward article.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anastrophe, as I have been saying all along, this entire thing is a blatant POV content push, and falls under WP:CRUSH. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of brief sentence - and edit summary
I added the following, brief sentence to the beginning on the third paragraph of the lead.

The term "assault weapon" is abstract.""

It was deleted with the edit summary "fixed source" - which didn't help me understand the reason for the change. (The source had been and still is used later in the paragraph. I used the same ref name.) I am going to restore it, and if there's an issue, I hope the edit summary will be more helpful, and/or that there will be an explanation here. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Question
When I supported the FAWB, one of the main reasons was that I do not think that kids in big cities need grenade launchers! I have been told since then, in no uncertain terms, that grenade launchers were not regulated in the FAWB, but instead the MOUNTS. Now I am seeing some evidence that I was correct in the first place. As a virtual outsider to this issue, which I still consider myself to be, can this issue be cleared up definatively, one way or the other? The issue seems extremely muddy. What is the exact text in the FAWB? If it says specifically one way or the other, the article should say so somehow. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The text of the law says "grenade launchers", but as 99% of the launchers are already restricted via NFA, the practical effect was to ban the launcher mounts. those who have NFA launchers are already registering NFA weapons, and therefore can easily and legally make their "assault weapon" into a fully automatic machine gun, which is no longer subject of the AWB regardless of having a launcher. I agree that kids do not need grenade launchers, but there is zero evidence that any kids ever have had a single one, let alone use one for any nefarious purpose.  Feinstein essentially admitted such, but dropping the launcher restriction from her 2013 bill. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand now. The FAWB could have "banned" nuclear missiles in the same way they "banned" grenade launchers. The mounts were the only thing that was effectively banned. This needs to be made clearer in the article somehow. It is very confusing to the layman. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This link is to a PDF of the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1994. Pages 201-215 are the "Assault Weapons" ban. Page 203 is where it lists "grenade launcher." Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Shame and ridicule" sentence addition
We had a little back and forth on this. IMO Choosing incendiary / straw man characterizations by one side of the other's actions should not be in the article. So far the article has managed to avoid such name calling / swipes. Plenty of such is available (SOURCED) but we have managed to avoid it and should continue to do so. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably replacing it with paraphrasing would solve the problem while retaining the content.  North8000  (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think a few examples of such language might be acceptable if it's attributed (not in WP's voice, or presented in a way that suggests that attributed source speaks for all on their side of an issue). Also, I think if we're going to quote a source who uses such language, I think we should keep the quote as short as possible, and NOT put the quote in the article AND in the notes.


 * For example, we currently quote Joseph Tartaro in the article: "One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called 'assault weapons' is to foster confusion. As stated previously, the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm." This from the Second Amendment Foundation website, by an SAF author, with a disclaimer on the source page, "Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue." And in the Note for this source, we include not only the two sentences quoted in the article, but the whole paragraph from which it was taken - and the paragraph after! This includes not only the incendiary "anti-gun strategy to gull the public" statement already quoted in the article, but an equally provocative "hoodwinked by the television charades" statement, AND the piece de resistance, "anti-gunners responsible for the hoax have continued to perpetuate it by exploiting public confusion." Any reader of our article, upon reading what we quoted IN the article, if they want to read more of such writing, they can follow the link and get their fill. We don't need to give Tartaro's opinions that much space/weight in our article, and to do so gives his POV undue weight.


 * Still, if we remove it outright, someone is likely to come along sooner or later and add it back, so let's leave what's in the article as a sample of how absolutists feel about the term, but minimize it. Drop the repetition of the quote in the notes. In other words, includes quotes in the notes when either A) there is no link the reader can get to easily to support an extraordinary or controversial statement, or B) we paraphrase something extraordinary or controversial.


 * That's my opinion, but whatever we do - we need to apply the same rules to both POVs. Lightbreather (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Lightbreather, I was going to get into the detailed points on how the choice of words is different....none are claiming shrill and unsympathetic verbage variants of what their opponents said. But on a more basic level, you are making my point.....two of the three quotes which you just listed have been left out of the article.  (only buried in the references).  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the underlying assertion is informative, but allegation by the writer that their opponents use spit-flinging choices of words is not. I plan to leave but paraphrase/summarize. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's out already.  North8000  (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

verification edit war
The sources do verify the statements made by those sources (tautology I know) - the question is how to present them. We are currently using WP:WEASEL wording to present those views to a cohort of unknown size and importance. The VPC and that particular author have made those claims, that is who the claims should be attributed to. We should state those claims as their opinions, but we can mention some of the primary sources they are using to attempt to defend their position. both sides shiould stop edit warring on this issue and actually remember the D part of BRD Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the sources may verify the claims, they do not verify the assertion the article makes. The assertion in the lede is that the term "assault weapon" was invented/promulgated by the gun industry in the 1980's. Neither of the first two sources provided in support of that claim actually make that specific claim. The third source, the VPC, does make that claim, although none of the material they provide in support of their assertion on the referenced site actually shows that the term was used in the 1980's - only one source which used the term in 1991.
 * Later, in section 1.1, the claim is made less specifically, eliminating '1980's from the claim. The first quote in support of the assertion is of the use of the term "assault firearm", not "assault weapon" (the term which is the subject of this article). The second quote supports the assertion partially - but not the claim that "others say", only that "one person says".
 * I strongly reject that this is edit warring or outside of BRD. Tagging sources is not edit warring, and I laid out my rationale at the bottom of the "Others argue, but convincingly?" section here on the talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Its a wording issue. Add something about "so and so argues" to the lede and it passes verification. We can disagree with the argument all we want, but it is foolish to try and say that nobody is making that argument and that we shouldn't mention it (See the ongoing debate in Gun Control where this same argument is being used to suppress information) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I understand you, Gaijin, then I agree with you, and thank you. As I put in my edit summary yesterday, the San Jose Mercury News article says, "In fact, the term was introduced by the gun industry itself to boost interest in new lines of firearms." And as I said in another edit summary, the New York Times article says, "Yet as Mr. Peterson noted in his buyer’s guide, it was the industry that adopted the term “assault weapon” to describe some types of semiautomatic firearms marketed to civilians."
 * The sources - two are reliable, mainstream newspapers - said these things. As for the VPC, if we're not going to consider that an acceptable source, then I think we ought to talk about the Second Amendment Foundation too.
 * One thing adding to contention over how to present this material: trying to pack three controversial claims into one sentence. We have them in this format: "It has been asserted that... or a term that was intended ... while others argue that." I broke this into three sentences yesterday, but someone reverted it with edit summary "edited for NPOV," which made me scratch my head.
 * We should also avoid verbs like "asserted" and "argued." "Said" is almost always the best choice for any article, and especially one on a controversial subject. Lightbreather (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First graf - neither assert that the term was promulgated in the 1980's (and when it was promulgated is relevant to the argument of where the term originated).
 * Second graf: Yes, the sources are reliable, but they are not directly supporting the assertion in the article as presented - only a general claim that the gun industry promulgated the term - 1990's? 2000's after the FAWB? Indeterminate. I have not suggested that the VPC is not an acceptable source, my words are being twisted. I have suggested that the VPC's claims do not directly support the claim that it was promulgated in the 1980's. Still, WP:FRINGE gradually becomes a more compelling argument in terms of how much ink is afforded these claims. Note them, but extensive quotes? Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "We should also avoid verbs like "asserted" and "argued." "Said" is almost always the best choice for any article, and especially one on a controversial subject." Is this a policy-based rationale, or a personal preference? I don't see any problem at all with "assert" and "argue". Why are they to be avoided? Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "I don't see any problem at all with 'assert' and 'argue'. Why are they to be avoided?" Going back to see if I've missed anything in the past week. I missed this. Sorry. Here is the guideline about synonyms for said. I've heard and read the same thing many times by many writers. Lightbreather (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While I think that 'argue' may indeed fall in the realm of weasel words, I disagree with the MOS regarding "assert". There's nothing weasely about 'assert' at all in my estimation, particularly in an article that's about a term, not a black & white fact. Either way, it's it's a guideline, not a rule, and in this context I fail to see how 'assert' is POV or 'loaded'. Anastrophe (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that a fix or removal is needed. That is a far reaching statement.  North8000  (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting it be removed. I'm suggesting that either the claims the article makes need to be fixed to conform to what the sources say, or the sources that do not directly support the claim in the article be removed - within the bounds of WP:UNDUE. We simply cannot and do not use sources inappropriately like this. Change it to 'Peterson claims" and "VPC claims" and it may pass muster. "Others say" and "Others argue" are unsupported, particularly in terms of WP:FRINGE. One person so far has been identified in reliable sources as claiming "assault weapon" was manufactured by the gun industry (but that one person offers no actual evidence). The VPC makes the claim, but also doesn't back it up with any actual evidence. Yes, these two parties have made that claim. Does it rise to the level of WP:UNDUE? It definitely doesn't fly to repeat sources that repeat Peterson, as a method of claiming it's a plural opinion that rises to notability. I'm fine with the assertion being made in the article if it is appropriately presented. Anastrophe (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't put words in my mouth then attack me for them, see "foolish to try and say that nobody is making that argument and that we shouldn't mention it". Nowhere did I make that argument. Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've restored the 'verification failed' tag to one of the sources. The source does not say what the article is claiming that it says. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a few very simple questions:
 * Is this article about the term "Assault Weapons"?
 * Is the term "Assault Firearms" identical in all ways to the term "Assault Weapons"?
 * Does the NYT article's quote say "Assault Weapons"?
 * If the answers are anything other than yes, no, no, we have a problem. Anastrophe (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm belaboring this, but I want to be absolutely crystal clear: I am not trying to eliminate the 'gun industry created the term' content. I'm in favor of its inclusion. Before editor lightbreather added it, I was unaware of the assertion that the gun industry promulgated the term. I believe it's being given WP:UNDUE to some extent, with sources that are not strict enough to support the assertions as framed in the article - but I do not contend that the assertion 'doesn't exist' or 'shouldn't be mentioned'. It should be mentioned - appropriately framed as a theory put forth by a small number of sources. Anastrophe (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to be clear about a few things, too. I had to be away from my desk yesterday, so I need to study the changes made, and I will respond on this talk page as my thoughts come together, but #1 I can say right now is that I, Lightbreather, did not add the statement: "while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself in the 1980s." Based on what the sources say, I am still looking for a better and simpler word than "promulgated." Yech.
 * When I came to the article space, I found a talk-page discussion about removing the statement. I had heard and read it and ones like it many times, so rather than let a valid counterpoint get axed, I looked for sources... and found them right within the very article the statement is in. (I think excluding "in the 1980s" was unnecessary, but I deferred as a peace-keeping measure. It would be better to put the kinds of details that lead to that point in the body anyway.)
 * The point I'm trying to make is, we are editing a controversial article, so please don't shoot the messenger. I want the article to be thoroughly NPOV, and y'all must forgive me if I don't use the jargon right, but I believe the pro-gun POV dominates the gun-cuntrol POV in this article. It's a combination of things discussed in WP:NPOV. And whether or not this is intentional, it's a lot to do with the distracting nature of a lot of technical language and the details of controversial items, especially in the lead, that are repeated - sometimes practically verbatim - in the body text. Or that don't get developed in the body.
 * This article would be GREATLY improved for the nonspecialist reader by removing a LOT of that technical language from the lead. It would also take a lot of controversy out of editing if every sentence of the lead was simple and sourced. Put the controversy, especially the details, in the body.
 * I actually have this little dream - and with work and cooperation, I think it could happen - that a controversial article like "Assault weapon" could become a good or featured article! Wouldn't that be something? Lightbreather (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One step toward that would be to discuss and edit the article structure, and then clean up the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, as I proposed 10 days ago.Lightbreather (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Based on what the sources say, I am still looking for a better and simpler word than "promulgated." Yech." I understand that some editors may not like some words, but that's not a rationale for changing or eliminating them. There is no requirement that articles be dumbed down to the LCD. Have a look at some of the molecular biology articles. Readers here on wikipedia explicitly have the internet at their fingertips; if they have difficulty understanding the word "promulgate", they'll surely just google it. By being here, they've already demonstrated a desire to learn, so we shouldn't assume that they're incapable or uninterested in familiarizing themselves with words that are new to them. (Previous by Anastrophe 20 DEC 2013 16:48. I'm breaking in here to comment. If there's a better way to do this, please tell me - Lightbreather.)
 * It's not so much a matter of me not liking that word or some words. Nor am I talking about dumbing down to the... lowest common denominator? WP readers do have the Internet at their fingertips, but we can't assume that they'll google every word they don't understand. Busy people may just push on through. My point is, most writers and editors agree: don't use big or uncommon words when small or more common ones are available. Most high-school grads are probably familiar with the word "introduce," but only the brighter or better-educated are likely to know what "promulgate" means. Why make them search for it, when there are so many other terms in this article that we want to be sure that they understand? That's all I'm saying. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Same argument: '[...]but we can't assume that they'll not google every word they don't understand'. 'People who are busy may not just push on through.'. "most writers and editors agree" - I think most writers and editors who work on professional encyclopedias would not agree, since an encyclopedia may cover topics as far reaching as "Ball" and "Deoxyribonucleotide synthesis". Let's simply not make assumptions about the readership. Anastrophe (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, I don't think anyone would object to the replacement of the word promulgate. The issue is you attempting to use reading level to justify a complete rewrite. If you see a sentence that can be made clearer without changing its meaning, do so. That is not controversial. Saying "scrap this article and rewrite it according to my vision and outline" and using the reading level as an argument is where you are getting lost in the bushes. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"but I believe the pro-gun POV dominates the gun-control POV in this article". Editors are, of course, entitled to their opinions. I ask that editors refrain from expressing personal opinions and representing them as foundational for change. Unless an editor can explicitly identify the bias they claim exists, the expression of this opinion is no more meaningful as a rationale for changing the article than if I were to say that the pro-control POV is being overrepresented by cite stuffing.Anastrophe (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain, or point me to a discussion on, cite stuffing or cite stacking? (I think you used the latter at least once before.) I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation_overkillGaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gaijin. I was aware of overkill, but that seems to be related to numerous citations for one statement, quote, etc. For example, how the second sentence of our current lead paragraph has five source citations. But I'm not sure that's what A. meant, and I wanted to be sure because I haven't heard those terms before. Lightbreather (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Others argue", but convincingly?
In the beginning section the 3rd from the last paragraph ends (after I snipped a bit unsupported by its citation, not to mention reality), "[...] while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself in the 1980s." with this NYT ref.

Now I don't deny Phillip Peterson argues this, even got the Gun Digest empire to publish a book using that title in 2008, which the article notes was largely rejected under that title, but no where can he quote "manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers" (besides himself in the latter role) using that term. Now for "assault rifle", no honest person with a good memory who was in this field in the 1970s and '80s would deny that corruption used for semi-automatic civilian versions (and then there's the assault vs. battle rifle difference, even the Swiss called their 12.5 pound (!!!) 1957 full power cartridge, almost a machine rifle, a Sturmgewehr !)

The closest he or the NYT can come is "In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called “Assault Firearms,” which it said was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”" He's making an extraordinarily claim, I think it needs more proof than he can deliver in this article, e.g. at least a citation like the one for the "Assault Firearms" book. As far as I can tell, the claim hinges entirely on the words and actions of one man (modulo the Gun Digest editors who went with his "Assault Weapons" title) ... and when examined at this level, furthers the thesis that this very sentence starts with! Hga (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that it is an overreach.  Not only in relation to the sources, but also in relation to perspective / wp:undue. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! wp:undue indeed nails it, If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.


 * I just spent some quality time with Google and found Assault Weapons of Ohio (a company that repairs and rebuilds Yugoslav AK pattern rifles), which I take to be an example of "Up Yours!" marketing (towards gun controllers), and this circa 1982 quote of TEC-9 family marketing: "Intratec U.S.A. ("Intratec") manufactured a vertical foregrip for use with the KG-99, which it marketed as an "Assault Grip." Intratec used the term "Assault Grip" in marketing the foregrip, "[b]ecause you basically hold the gun with two hands like you would as assault weapon, a military weapon."" which sounds like loose advertising copy (even the highest end manufacturers mess up, do a search on hk bullets backwards). Still sounds "extremely small"; shall we give others some time to find better citations and if not, delete due to wp:undue? Hga (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The question isn't whether or not anybody in the business has ever used the term (such as the linked repair shop). The question is the scratched text as written.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but I was putting on the other side's hat and trying to find other supporting citations, and I agree with you, failing. "Scratched text"?  I'm talking about a section of a sentence I left in place, since it has a supporting albeit very weak citation.  The text I deleted lacked that upon examination.  Anyway, as a matter of process, should we leave it in for a while to allow the other side to find solid citations, or delete it now that I at least am satisfied that per wp:undue it is unsupportable (IANAWikilawyer :-) ? Hga (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I added three sources: one used elsewhere in the article (Richman), plus two new (including Peterson's 2008 guide). Lightbreather (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Afraid your sources aren't very useful. The San Jose Mercury News one needs to be removed from that section (it uses a format I'm not yet familiar with or I'd do it now) because unless I missed it, no where does it even make the claim (feel free to correct me).  The reference to the Peterson book only reflects the NYT article---none of us are denying the book exists.  The VPC (which actually had a political campaign ready when the Stockton school yard shooting happened, Sugarman's writing about how useful it was that semi-auto assault rifles could be conflated with MACHINE GUNS!!! is enlightening) paper's link only bears fruit when you follow footnote 32, the end of which is "Ventech Inc. advertisement for "Assault Weapon Accessories" in Guns & Ammo, February 1991, 96 ("Mini-14...10/22...AR-7")." which again strikes me as very thin gruel to surmount wp:undue. Hga (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Hga. Beg to differ. SJMN source "" was/is one of five cited to support sentence:


 * Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.
 * Richman wrote: "The debate begins with a simple question that has no simple answer: Just what is an assault weapon?" But later in the article he wrote: ".... In fact, the term was introduced by the gun industry itself to boost interest in new lines of firearms," and "In 1984, Guns & Ammo magazine advertised a book called 'Assault Firearms.'" Lightbreather (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Richman wrote: "The debate begins with a simple question that has no simple answer: Just what is an assault weapon?" But later in the article he wrote: ".... In fact, the term was introduced by the gun industry itself to boost interest in new lines of firearms," and "In 1984, Guns & Ammo magazine advertised a book called 'Assault Firearms.'" Lightbreather (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This has been hanging here unresponded for a month. "In fact, the term was introduced by the gun industry itself to boost interest in new lines of firearms," and "In 1984, Guns & Ammo magazine advertised a book called 'Assault Firearms.'" The latter sentence does not support the first sentence, at all. "Assault Firearms" is not what this article is about. It's a pleasant fiction to conflate the two, but a fiction nonetheless - unless we are to rename the article "Assault Firearms" and rewrite it top to bottom to conform to this other term. The VPC source is extremely problematic. Nowhere in the article does it actually quote any gun industry source as calling the firearms "assault weapons". It repeatedly puts "Assault Weapons" in quotes, giving the impression that the term was used, but none are actual quotes from literature, ads, or whatnot, and none of the images on the page are large enough to read the type. In the endnotes, the only source that even mentions the term "assault weapon" is an advertisement in Guns & Ammo magazine...from 1991; hardly a reliable proof that the term was invented by the industry in the 1980's. We are left with one source, Mr. Peterson's statements, but they are attributed only to him, with no other foundation. For the claim that the gun industry introduced the term "Assault weapons" to stand, it's going to need some actual reliable sources that show this to be the case - not one man's claim, another article's conflation, and a third article that tries to show that the gun industry invented the term "assault weapon" but nowhere actually demonstrates it. I'm going to tag these sources, as they do not support the claim presented, certainly not without the rigor required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be away from my desk off-an-on today, but I will check-in. Also, I need to research purpose of the "Fails verification" tag. That's a new one to me. When you hover over it, it says, "The material near this tag failed verification of its source citation(s)." These tags follow quotes, and those quotes are in the cited sources, so I'm confused about the use of this tag in these examples. But, as I said, it's a new tag to me, so I'll research it further when I get time later today or tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * They fail verification because they don't support the claim tendered, which is that "others argue" or "others say" that the the term "assault weapon" was manufactured by the gun industry in the 1980's. Anastrophe (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion continued in "verification edit war" of 19 DEC 2013 below. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Need new source citation for...
I am working on standardizing the article's source citations using WP:CS1. So far, so good. I double-check my work as I go, but please do let me know if you see something wrong or have a question. I will also let you know when I see something wrong or have a question. Re: the current lead, sixth paragraph, first sentence: "The term 'assault weapon' is sometimes conflated with the term 'assault rifle' which refers only to military rifles capable of selective fire, including fully automatic fire and/or burst fire." The cited source is "".

Perhaps the source included the terms "selective fire" and "burst fire" before, but it doesn't now. One of you guys have a better basic reference work source? Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviewing old items. No-one has corrected this, so I have changed the article to reflect what the source says. Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Then there's this one - "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=921 United States Code, Title 18, Section 921 — Firearms: Definitions, which contains a definition of the term 'semiautomatic assault weapon'" It is used in several places, but does NOT contain a definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon," but rather for "semiautomatic rifle." Lightbreather (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What you're looking for is 18 USC § 921(a)(30), which as the current law has it: "[(30), (31) Repealed. Pub. L. 103-322, title XI, Sec. 110105(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2000.]" That is, the 1994 assault weapons law sunsetted in 2004, and with it the Federal list, along with (31), for large capacity ammunition feeding device.  You ought to be able to find a minimally authoritative copy somewhere on the net (it was incorporated in some state laws and is copied here and there for historical purposes), but you can also cite pages 143-4 of the 2007 5th edition of this book. Hga (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the word cosmetic
A recent edit removed the word "cosmetic" among other things from the lede, under the rubric of "simplification". This change requires discussion and agreement amongst the various editors. The term is extremely well sourced, and is fairly central to the debate of the meaning of the term "assault weapon".Anastrophe (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, this has been central to discussions and thus would be a major change.  North8000  (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The "among other things" was every bit as important. Rather than spend a lot of describing the changes I made, I'll place the before and after side by side here, so we can discuss their strengths and weaknesses.

FIRST, readability: The "Before" text reads at the 21st grade (grad student) level, with a reading ease score of 8. (On reading ease, the higher number, the better.) The "After" reads at a 13-th grade (college freshman) level, with a reading ease score of 27 (triple the before version). SECOND, I replaced the long, technical description of how a semi-automatic fires, with a simple one... and I cited a source. THIRD, accuracy. The cited source does not support everything in the sentence it's appended to. Specifically, it does not mention a folding or collapsing stock - so I removed it from that sentence, knowing the article goes into those kinds of details later. It partially supports the sentence preceding the one it's appended to, when it says, "These firearms have a broad set of cosmetic features that make them look like military weapons." It also uses the term "military-style" three times and simply "military features" once.

But just as has been done in the assault weapons ban article, it is advisable to leave the details of the controversy out of the lead, and put them in the body. Let's restore my edits, EXCEPT to say, "... an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more features similar to those on military firearms, such as a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip." Then we can present the "cosmetic" vs. "military" debate in the body? (This is currently touched upon in the "Relation to assault rifles" section.) Does that sound like an acceptable compromise? --Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Lightbreather, there are a lot of little POV changes in there, all in one direction.  And "cosmetic" is the least of them.  I would oppose such a big change.  I lost track and ams short of tiem.... if in already, IMO it should come out.    North8000  (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you are repeating the exact same arguments you did in the ban article here. Why would the outcome be any different? You voluntarilly put a morotorium on yourself as to such arguments. Why there is certainly a technicality of this being a different article, it is essentially the exact same argument on the exact same topic. Assault weapons are defined into existence by the ban. People might have used the term before, but there is no way to identify which are and which are not without the ban (or using the pornography definition "I know it when I see it"). Your moving the exact argument to a different article does not seem in the spirit of your decision to step away from this issue that you made with. Again, you are proposing wholesale changes, and presuming the correctness of your arguments in doing so. There is no maximum reading level requirement here. If you want to make things easy to read, perhaps you would find benefit in looking at https://simple.wikipedia.org/ Focus on gaining consensus for individual changes, not wholesale rewrites. Within that direction, you have enough experience in the wiki, and on this topic in particular now to know which changes are likely to be controversial (such as removing the word cosmestic without discussion). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"[...]at the 21st grade (grad student) level, with a reading ease score of 8." Mentions of this scoring system seem to be recurring theme; however, I'm unfamiliar with the wikipedia policy that requires specific readability 'scores' or that we dumb down articles to the LCD. Can I please get a cite the WP policy that specifies this scoring system be used, to the exclusion of common sense and respect for the reader? Absent a citation of policy specifying this scoring system, I request that further hectoring about it be dropped. This is an encyclopedia, not an elementary school essay or 'USA Today'. Readers who come here by definition have demonstrated a desire to learn.

Considering the massive discussions concerning the word 'cosmetic' on the FAWB talk page, which lasted for months and involved formal review for sanctions, I consider it reckless that the editor central to that huge past history is again attempting to remove the word cosmetic, particularly when it is a central factor to how the term "assault weapon" is used, defined, and debated, and definitely belongs in the lede (with further expansion in the body). Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ugh...here we go again with "cosmetic". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it's been mentioned here several times, here's a link to the last discussion on this issue - which I was not a part of, because of my promise to my mentor. I especially appreciated the third and fourth paragraphs, and was (and am still) quite sad that the discussion died without action. At any rate, because of mentor, whom I am very grateful for, I have avoided the subject, and I will say no more about it at present. Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to the topic at hand, I'm not certain I agree with North8000's most recent reversion. I think LB's last revision is much closer to a reasonable compromise than we've had thus far. I agree that the excruciatingly detailed explanation of how semi-autos work as opposed to full auto is over the top for the lede, the simpler 'one round per trigger pull' vs 'multiple rounds per trigger pull' distinction still being made. We still need to mine the remaining text for a balance between brevity and clarity. Anastrophe (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I think I reverted the wrong edit.   I'll undo.  North8000  (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word "defunct"
The word "Defunct" is the proper term for law and political institutions that are no longer valid. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defunct de·funct (d-fngkt) adj. Having ceased to exist or live: a defunct political organization. Adj.	1.	defunct - no longer in force or use; inactive; "a defunct law"; "a defunct organization" inoperative - not working or taking effect; "an inoperative law"

The term is explicitly applied to retired law, it is also the legal terminology. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Verification of this statement
The following statement in the History of terminology section was flagged (tagged?) as needing verification. It was changed to this, and the flag/tag removed: I've read the article numerous times now, including the section titles "Assault Weapons," and I just don't see a clear jump from it to the statement for which we're using it as a source. The two paragraphs in that section attributed to gun-rights advocates are these: The first statement says that one pro-gun group, the NSSF, complains that the difference(s) between assault weapons and other weapons under the 1994 ban was/were cosmetic. The second statement give the names preferred by some 2A groups and gun retailers. The words "misnomer" and "conflate" appear nowhere in the article, and where did "intended to" come from? Our article's statement needs to be rewritten or appropriately sourced. Lightbreather (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many advocates of gun rights consider the term "assault weapon" to be a misnomer intended to conflate civilian semi-automatic firearms with military assault rifles.
 * Gun rights advocates consider the term "assault weapon" to be a misnomer intended to conflate civilian semi-automatic firearms with military assault rifles.
 * "The National Shooting Sports Foundation and other gun enthusiasts complain that what ultimately separated an 'assault weapon' from a 'non-assault weapon' under the 1994 law was cosmetic.
 * "Some Second Amendment groups and gun retailers prefer the terms 'tactical rifle' or 'modern sporting rifle.'"
 * "Some Second Amendment groups and gun retailers prefer the terms 'tactical rifle' or 'modern sporting rifle.'"

A few sources using misleading, conflating, or misnomer on the term Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Convenience link to congressional testimony directly alleging "misnomer" https://www.archive.org/stream/gunviolencepreve00unit/gunviolencepreve00unit_djvu.txt
 * (More reliable link, but inaccessible http://books.google.com/books?id=vJZ3CYpYGggC&q=assault+weapons+misnomer&dq=assault+weapons+misnomer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wZu0Uo3QBYjZoATIroHICg&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCQ)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=hrpTAdnTERAC&pg=PA46&dq=assault+weapons+misnomer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wZu0Uo3QBYjZoATIroHICg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=assault%20weapons%20misnomer&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=QML9SquYGjkC&pg=PA2964&dq=%22so+called+assault+weapons%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7Jy0Ut_ZJ83goASEv4CgAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22so%20called%20assault%20weapons%22&f=false
 * https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/gun-advocate-assault-weapon-a-misleading-term-53367875761
 * http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-new-york-times-which-uncritically-re
 * http://reason.com/archives/1995/11/01/shooting-blind
 * http://saf.org/LawReviews/KobayashiAndOlson.htm
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=1P_jqtfvhzAC&pg=PA44&dq=%22assault+weapon%22+misleading&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cJ20Uu3BKcf5oAS0h4LADw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22assault%20weapon%22%20misleading&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=DdZFd54VCtYC&pg=PA31&dq=%22assault+weapon%22+misleading&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cJ20Uu3BKcf5oAS0h4LADw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22assault%20weapon%22%20misleading&f=false


 * Thanks, Gaijin. I'm not saying no-one used the words "misnomer" or "conflate." (The word "mislead" doesn't appear in the article.) I'm just saying the source cited in the article doesn't support the statement made, so I think either the statement should be reworded to be precise, or, if we're keeping the statement as it currently reads, other sources should be given. Which of the 10 you gave above would you say is the most reliable source for this statement? Lightbreather (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, above is an example of a heavily-sourcable sky-is-blue statement that you wanted to remove. It isn't happening here, but one common way to POV an article is to selectively and in a pattern apply the most stringent interpretation of sourcing requirements. We need to make sure that we don't slip into that here.  North8000  (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose improving lead per WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:BETTER, but first...
I would like to propose editing the article lead in line with the WP:LEADLENGTH guideline and WP:BETTER Lead section advice.

The entire text of our article is about 14,000 characters (lead through "Attributes in assault weapon definitions," excluding titles and footnote characters). The lead itself is six (6) paragraphs, but WP:LEADLENGTH suggests that articles under 15,000 characters should have leads of one or two paragraphs. The Lead section of WP:BETTER suggests no more than four. Is this possible on our article? I believe that if we work together it is.

However, we should probably first consider the advice in WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

There is redundant material in the body that could be eliminated with a little work. For instance, the first paragraph of the Definitions and usage section has material that is repeated in the Relation to assault rifles section.

In addition, the last four paragraphs of the History of terminology section is also similar to the Relation to assault rifles section - which in turn is echoed in the Political and legislative issues section.

Can we agree on merging some of this material? I am open to suggestions on how we might re-order the sections, though if no-one wants to venture first, I will. Lightbreather (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll go first. Here's the current TOC: How about? --Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 Definitions and usage
 * 1.1 History of terminology
 * 1.2 Expired U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban
 * 1.3 Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill
 * 1.4 Differing state law definitions
 * 1.5 Relation to assault rifles
 * 2 Political and legislative issues
 * 3 Attributes in assault weapon definitions [DISABLED]
 * 4 See also
 * 5 Notes
 * 6 External links
 * 1 Political definitions
 * 1.1 Relation to assault rifles [include history]
 * 1.2 Political issues [or simply "Politics"]
 * 2 Legal definitions
 * 2.1 Expired U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban
 * 2.2 Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill
 * 2.3 Differing state laws
 * 2.4 Attributes in assault weapon definitions
 * 3 See also
 * 4 Notes
 * 5 External links

I have partially made the proposed edits by creating a "Legal definitions" section and moving the three law/legislation sub-sections under it. This leaves the political definitions and arguments first, and the somewhat easier to present information second. A) This was a law, and this is how that law defined the term. B) This was a proposed law that failed to pass, and this is how that proposed law defined the term. C) These are existing state laws, and this is how those laws define the term. Not to say they aren't without controversy, but most of the debate in this article seems to be centered around the "what IS an assault weapon?" and other questions asked in the lead paragraph. Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)