Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 7

This article should be flagged as non-neutral, as it regurgitates NRA talking points in Wikipedia's voice without presenting the reasons for opposition
This article should be flagged as non-neutral, as it regurgitates NRA talking points in Wikipedia's voice without presenting the reasons for opposition (namely, that these weapons are used to kill large numbers of people quickly, with minimum of inconvenience for the shooter and have been used to do so in nearly every mass killing.) Neutrality does not consist in mere stating the NRA viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice without any counterbalance or reasoning as to why people oppose these weapons. An article cannot be considered neutral when it presents a fringe yet well-funded group's views as fact in Wikipedia's voice without presenting criticism in a similar fashion. Nowhere in the article is there any encyclopedic statement of the reasons people have for opposing the use of Assault Weapons. Reading this article one would think this is merely a dispute in theoretical semantics. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Assault weapons are not used in the majority of mass shootings; pistols are about twice as common of weapon. Overall, we'd need more info to see what in this article you think reflects NRA talking points. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As I stated, it is never mentioned in the article that assault weapons are often used to kill large numbers of people quickly (and that opposition to them is predicated upon that fact). Yet multiple paragraphs are spent covering whether or not the term "assault weapon" is a media invention or a "hoax", as claimed by the NRA and similar organizations. Do you think this reflects an appropriate balance considering the topic of the article? I certainly do not. Remember that this is an article about the thing, not the word.108.30.187.155 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The word "hoax" doesn't appear in our article. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I am not surprised that you want to argue semantics in the talk page, since the entire article is devoted to semantic debates over the WORD "Assualt Weapons" rather than the proper topic of the article, namely, Assault Weapons themselves. To rebut your point, please note that the article states as follows: ′"Meanwhile, many gun rights activists have put forward that the term originated from the media or gun control activists. Conservative writer Rich Lowry said that assault weapon is a "manufactured term".[24] Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) wrote in 1994: "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."[4] Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said "the term 'assault weapon,' as used by the media, is a MEDIA INVENTION."′[6]
 * I hope that disposes of your point. I'm sorry I used the word hoax rather than "Media Invention." Nevertheless, despite the excruciatingly length you spend on covering the disproven views of the Second Amendment Foundation on the origin of the WORD "Assault Weapon," the article spends 0 words explaining why people are opposed to the THING Assault Weapons-- to wit, that they are commonly used to kill large numbers of people quickly. Not only is this not mentioned in the lead of the article, there is not even a section on the reasons people oppose Assault Weapons in an article about Assault Weapons. Please explain why an encyclopedic article on Assault Weapons does not contain a section on the reasons people oppose their use (namely, that they are used for killing large numbers of humans quickly, with minimum inconvenience for the shooter, in case you've forgotten) or why these reasons should not be given prominent mention in the lead. Failing that, please explain why this article should not be tagged as lacking a neutral point of view, as I am requesting. Many thanks. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Since a particular firearm may or may not be an AW depending on the jurisdiction and specific law being applied, I'm not sure how you would be be able to draw such a broad and definitive conclusion. Discussion about the reasons behind a specific gun control law should be discussed in the article about the law, or at gun control and related sub-articles for general discussion. Your desire to supplant cited referenced material with your unsourced opinion implies you do not understand our actual policy on neutrality. I already corrected your misconception that rifles of any type are the most likely weapon to be used in a mass shooting. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies state that all prominent controversies regarding a topic should be covered not only in the article, but in the lead. This article violates that policy, by not discussing the reasons people oppose the use of Assault Weapons. Wikipedia's neutrality policy also requires that views be given DUE WEIGHT. Here, we find an article ostensibly on Assault Weapons which fails to discuss the reasons critics have for opposing the use of Assault Weapons, which are the very topic of the article. Hence the article as it stands flagrantly contravenes Wikipedia policy. You have not offered any explanation as to why an article on Assault Weapons that purports to be encyclopedic should not provide ANY INFORMATION on the reasons their use is opposed. Nor do you explain how DUE WEIGHT is being given when the views of the Second Amendment Foundation on the origins of the WORD "Assault Weapons" is discussed at far greater length than the reasons people have for opposing the THING Assault Weapons themselves. I did not draw a conclusion, but simply stated these reasons in summarized form and asked why this viewpoint is not included and covered extensively in its own section, when the tangential viewpoints of organizations such as the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation on the semantics of "Assault Weapons" are discussed at such great length. How exactly does this pass DUE WEIGHT? The fact that such material is also relevant at Gun Control has no bearing on whether it is also relevant here. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is obligated under its own policies to present the controversy on both pages. We don't simply segregate the pro-gun material to Assault Weapons and say the criticism of Assault Weapons belongs under Gun Control. That is patently absurd. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You set an impossible standard. There is no unique "the THING" defined as an assault weapon; the definition varies by jurisdiction. So we say that, and link to specific legislation. Reasoning for and against gun control simply isn't within the scope of this article. That isn't a DUE issue; it only becomes a problem if we break the articles up by POV as discussed at WP:NPOVFACT. We devote zero words in this article to "why AWs are good", and will continue to devote zero words to "why AWs are bad". VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article is Assault Weapons. The reasons people have for opposing the use of Assault Weapons in particular (as opposed to firearms in general) is certainly within the scope of the Assault Weapons article. I am emphasizing the distinction between Things vs Words, because Wikipedia articles aren't about words but about the thing the word purports to name. I did not suggest we need a section on the reasons "AWS are good" (as you sneered) but rather on why their use is notably opposed by large numbers of people and why there have been calls for their ban in particular (as opposed to the ban of all firearms.) Such debate is obviously relevant at this page, and you've not explained why the current article is merely about the discussion of the NRA and similar organizations' mistaken beliefs that the term "Assault Weapon" is a "media invention." Being encyclopedic, giving due weight to prominent views, and discussing relevant controversies in an article about a topic is not an impossible standard. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sneer-free over here. I've explained that there is no universally defined "thing" to be the subject of this article. I don't know how that can be made clearer. The only usage of the phrase "media invention" in the article is in an -attributed direct quote, at the end of a section that neutrally describes the origin of the term as debated. Your proposal to inject one side of the gun control debate into this article is rather obviously not going to happen. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest adding material regarding "the gun control debate" to the Assault Weapons article but rather the debate over Assault Weapons. Prominent controversies regarding a topic MUST, per Wikipedia policy, be covered in an article on that topic, and given mention in the lead. While the "gun control debate" is not material here, criticism and debate regarding Assault Weapons is certainly relevant to a page that purports to be about Assault Weapons. Whether or not such debate over Assault Weapons will be added to an Encyclopedia article that claims to be about Assault Weapons, I cannot say (I do not predict the future) though it rather obviously should be, given the topic of the article and the Wikipedia policies I have repeatedly cited.


 * PS: Please do not place further spurious warnings and threats on my talk page for "disruptive editing" for simply tagging the article with a NPOV tag when you perfectly well knew I had opened a discussion here to discuss my concerns regarding the article's neutrality and due weight. Many thanks. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the POV tag added by the IP editor. I think the issue the IP editor is missing is the scope of this article which is clearly setup in the lead.  As VQuakr correctly notes, there is not a universal definition thus we can't talk about these weapons as a class as one might do with say revolvers.  Springee (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a variable-meaning term
For example, one assault weapons ban banned the pistols commonly carried by police based on magazine size. Another proposed one defined all semi-automatic shotguns (approximately 1/2 of all shotguns) as assault weapons. So it is not any one thing, it has a variable legal and political definition. North8000 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the topic of the article is set up in the lead as the meaning of "Assault Weapon", the topic of the article is Assault Weapons, not the TERM assault weapons. (Recall that Wikipedia is not dictionary.) Per Wikipedia policy, prominent controversies regarding a topic (here, the topic is Assault Weapons) must be covered in the article. Please do not remove a NPOV tag before adequate discussion of the neutrality and due weight concern being raised. The fact that "Assault Weapons" are not as well-defined as "Revolvers" does not mean that prominent controversies regarding Assault Weapons should not be covered in the article about Assault Weapons. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sometimes is a dictionary; read the policy you linked down to WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Again, we obviously are not going to insert one side of the "controversy" as you desire. You are not the arbiter of whether adequate discussion has occurred; any experienced editor is going to be clear that your suggestion simply is not happening. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest that only one side of a controversy be presented. Both sides of a controversy regarding a topic should obviously be discussed and adequately treated in an encyclopedic article on that subject. Whether or not "it's simply not happening," you've not provided any reasons why a prominent controversy regarding a topic should not be treated in an article on the topic (other than "the subject is poorly defined" which is a pretty poor reason to omit relevant material from an article.) 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes articles can be about a term. If that weren't the case then this article would not exist because the term has such widely varying official meanings that there would be no distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The term is notable in large part because of the controversy regarding Assault Weapons, something one would not learn from reading the article. In fact, one learns almost nothing from reading this article. It fails to provide relevant material on the topic it claims to cover and fails to discuss the relevant and prominent controversies regarding that topic, in clear contravention of Wikipedia policy. Terms which are imprecise and the controversies regarding that which those terms claim to name can perfectly well be treated in an encyclopedic fashion. Most, indeed nearly all, terms are imprecise. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As described above, it is not merely "imprecise"; there is no distinct topic other than the term itself. North8000 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article's name is "Assault Weapons," not "The Term 'Assault Weapons'" As stated in the Disambiguation link on top of the page "This article is about firearms restricted by some United States laws." It does not say "This article is about the Origin of the term 'Assault Weapon.'" And even if it did, relevant controversies regarding 'Assault Weapons' would still be germane to the topic of the article and would require treatment in the article. There are numerous topics, such as "Assault" or "Weapons," which are variable meaning terms with differing definitions, yet we have articles on these topics which manage to discuss relevant controversies regarding the topic at hand. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When an article is about a term, you do not put "the term" in the title. And again, if it wasn't about the term, this article could not exist. North8000 (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The term is notable due to the controversies surrounding it, which are not restricted to semantic debates over what constitutes an assault weapon and the etymology of the term and whether it is a "media invention" etc. Numerous terms are variable meaning, are constitutively imprecise, yet we manage to cover relevant controversies regarding those topics within those articles. Indeed, policies are extremely clear that relevant controversies related to a topic must be covered. Failure to do so violates NPOV. The fact that there is no "universal definition" of assault weapon is not relevant. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the points made and going in circles. The controversy IS covered. You are arguing for something further that requires positing that something exists (a single type of firearm defined by the term) which doesn't, and are ignoring attempts to explain that.North8000 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not posited that "there is a single type of firearm defined by the term." Where exactly in the article are controversies regarding the topic of the article (as stated in the header "firearms restricted by some United States laws") covered? Where in the article are the reasons for these restrictions given? 108.30.187.155 (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll assume that you are only unknowingly ignoring the point. So what are you proposing covering about these (pictured):....the first is an actual assault weapon, the second (based on magazine size) and third (based on being semi-automatic) have been included in the various legal definitions of "assault weapon". North8000 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'll assume that you are ignoring my point because you are having difficulty comprehending it, rather than arguing in bad faith. The term 'weapon' is certainly vaguely defined but we have an article on the topic that is not solely devoted to definitional disputes on the word 'weapon.' Being vaguely defined does not preclude encyclopedic coverage of topic. "So what are you proposing..." For a start, the article ought to include the reasons various groups have sought to prohibit the use of assault weapons, since that is obviously at least as relevant to the article as the regurgitation of NRA talking points that the term 'Assault Weapon' is a "media invention."108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: (1) The article as currently written does a pretty good job of presenting a neutral point of view. I don't see it as repeating NRA talking points, except perhaps in the context of presenting multiple points of view. (2) The article talks a lot about the definition of the term, and it also talks a lot about federal legislation. That's good. But it doesn't talk much about the controversy over whether or not assault weapons should be banned, or otherwise regulated more than other firearms. This is in the United States, at a federal, state, or local level. In my view the article could have a lot more material about that, it's an oft-discussed topic. Personally I am not planning on adding it myself -- so many articles, so little time -- but that's what I think anyway. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * per WP:SUMMARY we shouldn't say much about the pros and cons of assault weapons legislation since more detail can be found at Assault weapons legislation in the United States, which we correctly link to from the appropriate section with the "main" template. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, the controversy about the pros and cons of assault weapons legislation is an important part of the topic of assault weapons, and this article would be better if it had significantly more coverage of that. The "Assault weapons legislation in the United States" article is also light on coverage of the controversy, but that's okay, I would say, because that other article is mostly about all the different laws themselves.  — Mudwater (Talk) 23:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Assault weapons" refers to a vaguely defined term that was made up by gun rights and gun control advocates as well as the media to describe various things. The article presents numerous POVs on the subject because that is necessary when there is not a legitimate definition of assault weapon, as opposed to the very clearly defined "assault rifle." That is not NRA propaganda, considering we still use numerous left-wing sources for context. Bill Williams 23:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Who cares if the term is "vaguely defined?" There are plenty of subjects with vague definitions, such as "media," "gun control", "left wing," to name 3 terms which you used above which are given encyclopedic treatment on Wikipedia, yet whose articles are not SOLELY DEVOTED TO DEFINITIONAL QUIBBLES ABOUT SAID TERM. All of those terms are at least as vague as the term "Assault Weapon." As for your claim that there is a balance of perspectives in the article, this simply isn't true. For example, look here: "Prominent gun-control groups that support restrictions on ownership of firearms include the Brady Campaign[49] and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.[50] Prominent opponents of assault-weapons bans include the National Rifle Association[51] and Gun Owners of America.[52] In 2002, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Jim Baker said "assault weapons" is a pejorative term.[53] The National Shooting Sports Foundation considers it a politically driven catchphrase aimed to conflate non-automatic weapons with full-automatic assault rifles.[48]" So the article MERELY NAMES 2 gun-control groups and states that they "support restrictions on ownership of firearms" IN GENERAL, while quoting extensively the considered views of the NRA and a similar organization that "Assault Weapons" is "pejorative" and is a "politically driven catchphrase." How is this balance when the article fails to mention the reasons gun-control proponents have for banning assault weapons in particular, yet extensively quotes from the NRA? 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS In addition, had you read the article before posting here, you would know the article itself rebuts the NRA talking point you've quoted that "assault weapons is a media invention", and does so from a right-wing source, The Gun Buyers Digest Guide to Assault Weapons: "The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun." Nor does it matter one whit to the question at hand (the neutrality of the article) where the term came from. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Assault weapons is a term made up over the past few decades, while left-wing has been used far longer and is much more well defined, even if vague. People quite literally identify as left-wing, while a gun cannot magically come out and say that it identifies as an assault-weapon, that is just a label put on it by others. And those others staunchly disagree on the precise definition because the term is extremely vague. That is not due to the NRA, GOA, the media or gun control advocates but it based on the fact that numerous different types of weapons have a pistol grip and detachable magazine, which are the only static parts of any definition of an assault weapon. Bill Williams 16:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's time to back away from the horse carcass. VQuakr (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s time to stop poisoning the well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk • contribs)
 * Suure. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I thought of an analogy. Lets say that somebody coins the term "Type 2 terrorists" to refer to most olive skinned immigrants, and the term gets widespread usage, including those arguing for stopping immigration from the mideast or central America. So Wikipedia has a Type 2 terrorists article to explain the origins and usage of the term, and explain that it has so many different meanings that it is near-meaningless. Now let's say that there is a raging debate in 2021 about banning all immigrants from Saudi Arabia, and that proponents use the term "Type 2 terrorist" to identify them. Should this debate be covered in the Type 2 terrorists article or the 2021 Saudi Arabian immigration controversy article? This not just a matter of bias / NPOV, more importantly, by covering the debate at the "Type 2 terrorist" article, it reinforces the false fake news that "Type 2 terrorist" is a specific type of immigrant. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Self-sourced opinions
I removed the following pargraph which is entirely self-sourced:

I'm moving it here in hopes that reliable secondary coverage can be found; otherwise it may not be WP:DUE for inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the removal but it's worth noting this has been stable in the article since early 2015 . It looks like  were involved in the edits around that topic.  Pinging them to see if they have views on it's removal. Springee (talk)

I also have no strong opinion, but removal of that long standing well sourced material really doesn't make sense. Those organizations are are suitable sources for sky-is-blue statements about their agendas. Also, at first glance, it looks like there were several editors and a lot of consensus work involved in developing it. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd say put it back. These are well-known organizations stating their positions. Sometimes it's okay to use primary sources, and this is one of those times. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, these are suitable sources for their opinions, but do they establish due weight for inclusion? We would need independent secondary coverage for that, regardless of how well-known these advocacy groups may be. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weight is intended to provide balance, not to be a condition for every item included in an article. By that standard we'd erase about 1/2 of Wikipedia. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this removal. This content does not seem to add any useful information, aside from name-dropping a few organizations. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus
I added the following paragraph to the lead (which was approved and added to by another editor) which was subsequently deleted citing only cryptically WP:ONUS (a 2-sentence non-page, btw). Please note that citing WP: ONUS does not help explain what you find objectionable about this well cited, clearly relevant material which was approved and edited by another editor. Can you tell me what is wrong with this well-referenced and well-balanced paragraph, which helps this page adhere to Wikipedia policy that all significant controversies regarding a topic must be discussed in the lead?

"Many groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support bans on assault weapons, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." Other groups are opposed to restrictions on the use of assault weapons, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention." . After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level. "108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * IMO there are several problems with that. Without getting into all of them, one that I've been particularly concerned about is giving legs to fake news that "assault weapon" is some specific type of weapon. That wording implicitly puts it in the voice of Wikipedia that it is.  I think that whenever the term is used we need to clarify.  This is not handled by general attribution of the statement, we need to attribute the selection of the term. Best done by putting quote marks around the term.  Or else wording like "what the term to be assault weapons".  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm fine with your suggestion of putting quotations around uses of "assault weapon," so readers are made aware that use of the term is contested. To be fair, in the very next sentence we introduce and quote the view you're citing that 'assault weapon' is a "media invention," so readers will certainly be made aware of the contested and debated nature of the term.108.30.187.155 (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop. Your arguments here are fundamentally flawed because they pre-suppose there is a standard definition for "assault weapon".  There isn't.  That is why the article talks about various definitions etc.  Please review some of the historical discussions related to this topic. Springee (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What does your comment have to do with the topic at hand? I have not "pre-supposed" anything. I quoted verbatim a group that supports restrictions regarding the topic of the article. I don't follow why your point, even if assumed to be true, would imply that groups supporting restrictions regarding the topic of the article should not be quoted in the article. Quoting only the position you're citing while not mentioning opposed views clearly violates Wikipedia policies on neutrality. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes it does pre-suppose. That (and avoiding it) was the main point of my post. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Due to the continued edit warring I've opened a discussion here . Springee (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "continued edit warring"? I haven't edited the article once since opening this discussion. I didn't make any reversions to the article and opened this discussion to seek consensus when asked. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey folks. I just thought I'd chime in again. It would in fact be appropriate for this article to include more material about the assault weapon gun control debate. Pro gun control groups say that assault weapons should be banned or otherwise restricted -- and why -- "they're more dangerous than other conventional firearms, because of X", etc., according to those groups. Pro gun rights groups say that's not true -- and why -- "they're just conventional rifles that you think look scary, you made up the definition", etc., according to those groups. Yes, assault weapons are defined -- arbitrarily or not, that's part of the argument -- by the laws that restrict them. Yes, different laws have different definitions. The article should explain all that, or it already does. That's what a lot of people in the U.S. are talking about, and that's what many readers would want from this article -- with, of course, a balanced perspective covering both sides of the argument. P.S. Generally speaking, an "assault weapon" -- with or without the quotes -- is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. I know, I know, a lot of laws throw in other guns too, and it's all vague and ill-defined. Again, my opinion is that all of the above should be explained in the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC) The IP editor's content in the lead essentially is an appeal to authority that such laws are effective and that the definition of the weapons in question is settled. Keeping such a section impartial is critical. Springee (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the proposed content; the sources (with maybe the exception of Fox) are not "fake news" and the opinions of these groups seem DUE. I don't quite follow the claim that we're pushing a single definition of "assault weapon" or whatever, but perhaps we can find a way to word it differently that we can all agree on. –dlthewave ☎ 21:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fox is an acceptable source for much of this information. Remember that Fox is "use with care" not "unreliable". Springee (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What and how is something that needs to be addressed here. The IP editor was edit warring new content into the lead, content that wasn't supported by the article body.  Information about the debate over assault weapons laws is within the scope of this article If the intent is to add a new subtopic talking about advocacy for/against assault weapons legislation that would be reasonable.  That is something that could go in politics or in another section.  A new section about along the lines of "Debate about Assault Weapons Legislation" could cover arguments for and against.  However, it shouldn't turn into an appeal to authority that presupposes any specific regulation is correct.
 * Sure, let's also add it to the Political and legislative issues section which currently has similar content about advocacy. The IP did give equal space to viewpoints for and against assault weapon legislation without bias toward one or the other, which is a good way to avoid implying that one side is "right". I'm still a bit confused about how that edit implies that the definition is "settled", especially when the very next sentence mentions varying definitions. Any ideas for how we could avoid these perceived implications without excluding due content? –dlthewave ☎ 23:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's see some better sources, especially third party sources before adding the content. Also let's not try to jam something into the body as an excuse to put this content in the lead as proposed.  It's far from ready as proposed.  Springee (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll try to find independent sourcing for the AAP quote. I suppose the NRA-sourced quotes should stay out as well until they can be better sourced. –dlthewave ☎ 23:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep impartial and weight in mind. Are there specific NRA quotes you think need to be removed? The current article has been stable for a while so let's keep that in mind.  Also, the views/statements of notable primary sources can be used but need to be used with caution.  The NRA's statements/views on something like the federal assault weapons bad is quite notable.  Still, I suspect you should be able to find secondary sourcing for their claims and such sources wouldn't hurt to add. Springee (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL why would the NRA's views be notable? –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * no, the NRA quote doesn't need to be removed. The proposed AAP quote isn't a counterpoint to it, and not one's proposing shoehorning a NRA quote into the lead. VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't want a quotation I can simply state that proponents of assault weapons bans support these bans for the reasons stated therein, but you've rejected that approach too. This literally is the opposing point of view to the view you are citing. It is obviously and absolutely intended to be a counterpoint to the NRA perspective which you've mentioned though not quoted in the lead. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, these are not counterpoints. "The definition of an assault weapon depends on which legislation defines it" is a non-controversial statement of fact. Different proposed and enacted AW laws have covered different firearms. "The term 'assault weapon' is a left-wing invention to scare people" is an opinion which should be attributed. The proposed AAP quote is also a statement of opinion, but it isn't a counter-point to either of the previous positions. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, these literally ARE direct counterpoints. Not only are they counterpoints, they are so OBVIOUSLY counterpoints that someone claiming otherwise must be arguing in bad faith. Denying something and then going on a non-sequitur doesn't make it so. The NRA position, which you gush so fawningly over and defend to the end, is that "The term 'assault weapon' is a media invention." This is literally quoted in the article. The counter-point to that position is the one which I've attributed to the AAP, but which could be attributed to any organization, stating that "The only use for assault weapons is to kill as many people as quickly as possible" (i.e. they are not a "media invention" but an actual object that kills actual human beings.) If you don't understand how those are counterpoints, you have extreme difficulties in reading comprehension, have guzzled far too much NRA kool-aid, or both. Editing this article appears pointless considering your stubborness on changing even 1 sentence to provide a counterpoint to the heavily pro-NRA bias and your severe WP: OWN issues. Enjoy your shitty, non-encyclopedic propaganda article. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * American Academy of Pediatrics isn't an authoritative source on firearms and shouldn't be quoted in the lead as proposed, particularly since we don't quote them in the body of the article. I don't think the proposed changes to the lead are WP:DUE, and the IP's edits overall are clearly WP:TE. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as I still think Assault weapons legislation in the United States is quite clearly the correct location to discuss the reasons for assault weapons legislation, not this article which is about the term in general. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed Springee (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a grand total of one sentence to this article which you reverted, and previously attempted to place a disputed neutrality tag on the article, which you promptly removed. I am failing to see how you could accuse me of "tendenditious editing" and "making naked appeals to authority" for adding this one sentence to the article hich simply directly quoted the American Academy of Pediatrics as a citation of reasons some groups support "assault weapons bans" when you've quted reasons other groupos oppose these same restrictions and when the topic of the article is "firearms restricted by certain United States Laws". All this is beyond me. All the same, if the two of you could stop with unsupported accusations, that would be lovely. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sentences are you claiming I reverted? Were you referring to VQuakr?  Sometimes indents can make things confusing. Springee (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing: editing with a clear POV. Yes, that's what you're doing. You proposed putting this in the lead, and stating that "many" groups have this POV, a statement not supported by the source you (eventually) provided. kinda looks like two sentences to me. If you don't want to be accused of the things you're doing, stop doing those things. VQuakr (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposing that a single statement of reasons for opposition be placed in the lead of an article on the topic is not tendentious. You have certainly been far more tendentious in your complete refusal that any discussion of oppositional points of view be placed in the article, and have been completely unwilling to compromise or find consensus. I am fine with "some" groups, although I think "many" is plenty accurate. The citation is just supposed to be a citation of reasons that certain groups and individuals have in favor of restrictions or bans regarding the subject of the article. Stating that this POV on restrictions on the topic of the article prominently exists is not endorsing the view, pre-supposing any definition, or appealing to the authority of the organization quoted. I can find you other sources quoting the same view, or studies showing the majority of the population supports these restrictions when asked this exact question, although it really seems clear you're prepared to reject whatever suggestions I make and come up with reasons for doing so later. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My comments are from three different angles:

<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is inevitably an article about a variable meaning term, not a type of firearm, and that "plan A" should be to proceed based on that.  Debate should be covered about / in articles about  real types of firearms.
 * Plan B: Agree that the debate about the most common meanings of the vague term should be handled somewhere where actual real identification of firearms is used, but here's "plan B":   There are RS's which quote originators which said that the term is invented to confuse (with military firearms)  for political purposes, not to identify any type of firearm. My main goal is to avoid promulgating something that is objectively a falsehood, including statements that implicitly (falsely) state that it has a consistent meaning as a type of firearm.  There are ways to increase coverage of the debates in this general area without propagating terminology falsehoods.  They are vulnerable to attack by wikilawyering and so it would take a true joint effort by all concerned.  In vague shorthand, it would be something like (in the body of the article)  "persons and organizations are opposed to xxxxxxxxx style firearms (e.g. an AR-15) being available to the general public for the following reasons:   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and use the term "assault weapons" to refer to those types of firearms.
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a place to try to force / provide a full soapbox to the full dialog (including their obfuscating terminology efforts) of political opponents. Especially since this is an article about a term, not an specific type of firearm. And then a very brief version of this in the lead.
 * Regardless of its origin, "assault weapon" is a widely used and treated as a valid term by reliable sources. It's not our role to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and censor it just because we disagree with the way it's used. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that it's not a valid term. The point is that it doesn't refer to any specific type of firearm and we should not mislead by writing otherwise. And you can skip the patronizing linking and mis-characterizqaation of what I said.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did anyone write that it referred to a specific type of firearm? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings again, this isn't a great topic area for the easily offended. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended. I was discussing your behavior exhibited in that post. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What behavior? I don't get it. Is there something wrong with using wikilinks? –dlthewave ☎ 03:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was discussing your post, not the general concept of posting links. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And your point is...? –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, back to the topic at hand. How does the edit in question imply a specific type of firearm? I'm just not seeing it, please enlighten me. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Using it in the context of referring to a type of firearm (vs being a term)without explanation does that. It isn't that hard to fix. Something as simple as "a type of firearm commonly referred to has an "assault weapon". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's at all appropriate to add qualifiers like that, since they change the meaning of the source and give the appearance of casting doubt on the term. –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course there is doubt about the term; that is one of the two of the two main main "debates" here. Using it without attribution or explanation in the voice of Wikipedia is having Wikipedia choose a side in the contest, in the voice of Wikipedia. Such statements are actually two statements in one on the two main contested areas.   Attribution is needed for each.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

One way to unbundle the two main controversies in order to cover one without pre-supposing the other
This would be to create a section along the lines of "controversies regarding AR-15 style firearms" and cover both sides of that debate in there. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start an AR-15 style section and see if this can provide a framework for resolving some items here<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Systematically Biased article
I have added a tag noting that this article is Systematically Biased due to the WP:OWN issues of several editors here, who staunchly refuse to add a single sentence documenting the anti-NRA position to this article. We have clear statements of the NRA position "The term 'Assault Weapon' is a media invention" in the article, yet the opposing POV, "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time" (as quoted by the American Association of Pediatrics, or any other organization that supports bans on Assault Weapons) is NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the article. Until this deficiency is remedied, the tag must remain. If you attempt to remove the tag without remedying the problem, then we will have to go to dispute resolution. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The other problematic things about your tag and post aside, you are missing the point. The NRA's position quoted is that the term "assault weapon" is a variable-meaning media invented term. And then then you propose wording that implicitly says the opposite in the voice of Wikipedia. Sort of like saying "critics differ on whether or not Bigfoot is a vegetarian".  Since this article is essentially about a term, I would love to see the opposing viewpoint on that covered.   So it would need to be along the lines of ""xxxx claims that the term "assault weapon" does define......".<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What I am suggesting is adding the quotation (or some similar quotation) that I proposed by the AAP (or some other organization). How is adding a quotation putting words "in the voice of Wikipedia?" All I am suggesting is that we add "According to the AAP, " Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time" as a counterpoint to the NRA quote "According to the NRA, "the term 'Assault Weapon' is a media invention."" Both sides of the Assault Weapon debate should be quoted, not just one. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that AAP is defining "Assault Weapon"? This seems to be their opinion as to what an assault weapon does tell a reader how to decide if a specific weapon is or isn't an "assault weapon".  That, ironically, supports the NRA's point.  Restoring the tag against consensus is becoming a problem.  Springee (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the big difference between Bigfoot and an assault weapon is that assault weapons (and assault weapon bans) are real things that actually exist. Assault weapons legislation in the United States is a far more developed article that handles the ambiguous definition by saying "How these firearms are defined and regulated varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but typically they are semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip." in the first paragraph. In my mind, this tells the reader up front that the definition is variable and avoids the need for clunky language like "a type of firearm commonly referred to has an 'assault weapon'" every time we use the term. Do you think that approach could work here? –dlthewave ☎ 13:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting something like, "the AAP suggests that the definition of assault weapon is ..."? Where would this fit into the article? Springee (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Bigfoot" in my analogy is analogous "a recognized term that defines a particular type of firearm" and the argument is that such does not exist.   And my argument is that anything in the voice of Wikipedia should not implicitly pre-suppose or imply an answer on that question.  So the 2 big questions are that one about the term, and then the debate over AR-15 style firearms. ("AR-15 style firearms" might be the answer to your question)  And I would welcome covering intelligent debates on both, although the latter would be a very large expansion of the article.    To use another analogy, critiques on Joe Biden's agenda, method of operating, approval ratings etc. would seem appropriate for the Joe Biden article, (although even those seem to be missing)   but not things like talking points like "critics say that Joe Biden is senile, has plummeting approval ratings"  etc..  BTW, the case against banning AR-15 style firearms has not been covered here (e.g. an all purpose rifle, the most popular type of rifle in the united states, exceedingly rare use in crimes, no more powerful that grandpa's deer rifle etc.)  so if we really want to expand from the "term" into that debate, we're going to have a really large expansion of the article. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The NRA et al claim "The term "Assault Weapon" is a media invention" is one side of this debate. The opposed side of the debate denies this and instead claims "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." I am really not understanding how you two are failing to see that the two sides of the debate here are "Assault Weapons are a media invention" vs "No, Assault Weapons are dangerous weapons intended to kill the maximum number of people in the minimum amount of time." It should be self-evident that these are the opposed sides in the debate here. What you are basically demanding is that the debate must be conducted and presented to the readers on the NRA's terms, and thereby insisting that the debate must only be about semantics (the meanings of words.) It is for this reason that the article is systematically biased. We can easily fix this bias by merely including note that this other perspective on the topic prominently exists (and has been the basis for legislation), which states that "the only use for assault weapons is to kill many people quickly." It's fine to include the NRA's semantic perspective, but the opposing non-semantic perspective must also be included. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, for anyone who has newly joined us, ALL I have asked to be included is, "According to organizations such as the AAP that support assault weapons bans, "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time."" This (or something of this nature) presents the opposing view to the dominant view overwhelmingly expressed and quoted in the article of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, and the Connecticut Shooters Club (and others quoted in the article to this effect) that "The term 'Assault Weapon' is a media invention." I am honestly finding it baffling that anyone could disagree that an article about 'Assault Weapons' should not include at least one quotation from a prominent group critical of the topic of the article, and presenting the reasons for said criticism. Complete and utter failure to do so is why the article is biased. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article is clear that the term isn't a media invention. The article is also clear that the actual definition is not fixed and thus becomes hard to define.  Hence the NRA's claim is about the term itself.  The AAP's statement presupposes a definition exists and that all weapons covered by that definition have the following characteristics.  That becomes a statement about a specific, yet unstated set of criteria that make a definition.  So how do you think this should fit into the article?  Springee (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not here to argue with you over whether the AAP claim is correct, or what its presuppositions are. I am saying this quotation (or others like it, I am not married to this one) represents a prominent viewpoint on the subject. This viewpoint may be correct, it may be incorrect. It may be laden with false presuppositions. None of this matters. It is a prominent notable viewpoint on an area of controversy regarding the topic and hence ought to be included. Whitewashing the article from even allowing this viewpoint to merely be quoted bespeaks bias. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't be clear about what edits you want or what is wrong with the article then we should remove the tag and be done with the discussion. Springee (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? I have made extremely clear what edits I want and what is wrong with the article. What is wrong with the article is that it never presents the point of view of those who oppose assault weapons, quoting only from the NRA's position. Until that is remedied, the defective neutrality of the article has not been remedied. For a start, I have clearly proposed we add the following to the beginning of paragraph 3:
 * Many groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support assault weapon bans, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." Other groups are opposed to restrictions on the use of assault weapons, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention." . After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time" that is just nonsensical and clearly false. A 50 caliber machine gun can slaughter far more people than any semi-automatic assault weapon that fires uses an intermediate or smaller cartridge, and any fully-automatic rifle, which does not qualify as an assault weapon, is meant to kill more effectively than a semi-automatic one. When has the military's job been to kill as many people as possible? Do enemies somehow line up to get shot easily? People take cover or even hide and spraying a bunch of bullets randomly would make absolutely no sense, which is why that is the dumbest thing I have seen all day. Bill Williams 17:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bill, is your comment honestly being made in good faith? I've suggested that Wikipedia quote someone as stating this view, not that Wikipedia should be endorsing it, hence your entire point is a complete non-sequitur. No one cares in the least what your considered views on "the dumbest thing you've seen all day is" nor did your ramblings have any bearing on whether the quotation is dumb. Amazing that you would call something "nonsense" and then spew forth a bunch of words with obviously no connection to the topic at hand. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You chose to quote what a bunch of childrens' doctors said when the vast majority of reliable sources say what you have claimed. Unless you can provide a source with any knowledge on the subject that claims semi-automatic weapons are designed to kill or maim the maximum amount of people, do not make such absurd claims. Again, they are designed to kill the specific targets of the person holding the gun, not spray wildly into a crowd of people. Although nowadays the military uses fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons were once the main ones utilized, and contrary to what you may believe, enemy soldiers did not line up to be maximally "killed or maimed". Bill Williams 06:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with including the opinion of a pediatric organization? Who better to describe the effects of these weapons than the professionals tasked with repairing the wounds produced by them? –dlthewave ☎ 23:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? A few children are killed by "assault weapons" annually while there are over 27,000 pediatricians and each sees thousands of patients each year, meaning almost no pediatricians will see a single patient who has been shot by an assault weapon. Also, pediatricians don't even operate on patients and a random organizations with pediatricians as members has absolutely no reliability on the issue of gun terminology. Should we be quoting what McDonald's has to say about this? What about Tesla? They have the same amount of credibility on this issue as pediatricians, who are not firearms experts. Bill Williams 06:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bill, the AAP has expertise in the area of public health. Your analogy with McDonald's is, quite frankly, childish. Please put some thought into your posts. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Folks this is clear WP:TE. We should be pursing a topic ban to encourage the IP to go find a battleground somewhere that doesn't affect Wikipedia, not entertaining this nonsense. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and file more spurious reports against me; remind me, it really worked out well for you last time you submitted a frivolous report against me, didn't it? I'm happy to take this conflict to dispute resolution given your obvious ownership issues and fundamental unwillingness to engage in compromise or collaborative editing with those whom you disagree or seek consensus over disputed issues. I'd very greatly appreciate if you don't make further bad faith threats of making spurious reports. I'd be more than willing to seek dispute resolution over this content issue, which you keep attempting to silence through threats of further spurious abuse of process. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, rather than accuse others of bad faith, why don't you propose what you think should be added, where it would go etc. Other than edit warring content into the lead I haven't seen a real edit proposal for this content.  Springee (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've proposed very clearly that the following sentence, or something similar, should be added to the lead "'Some groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support assault weapon bans, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." Other groups are opposed to such restrictions, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention." . After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.   ''
 * Even if you insist that we use some qualifier such as 'so-called 'assault weapon bans',' which I would be willing to accept to reach compromise here, I think including such a statement of the reasons such bans are supported by some, on the supposed topic of the article, is required for the article to achieve a neutral perspective on its topic. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Springee, the IP has stated the proposed content multiple times (including here) in response to your repeated questions. I respect that you disagree with the proposal but this is starting to look like a combination of hounding and IDHT and it needs to stop. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave, first, please drop the accusations of bad faith. Until the reply above yours I don't see that the IP editor proposed text, sourcing and where the edit would be in the article.  Now we can see the IP editor wants to put this content in the lead but not the body.  However, per MOS:LEAD this sort of content needs to be in the body first.  So where would it go and what sources would be provided?  That is a legitimate question, not hounding.  Consider a suggestion more like this made to the History of the Terminology section:
 * Meanwhile, many gun rights activists have put forward that the term originated from the media or gun control activists. Conservative writer Rich Lowry said that assault weapon is a "manufactured term". Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) wrote in 1994: "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." Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said "the term 'assault weapon,' as used by the media, is a media invention." The American Association of Pediatrics has defined assault weapons as ....[source]
 * I don't think it's a good fit since the AAP's opinion on a nebulously defined set of firearms is not exactly the history of the term. Then again, where else would this content go in the body? Springee (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is a structural one. The controversy most directly relevant to this article (or possibly in a tie for #1) is whether or not the term is legitimate.   While it is mentioned, this major area is missing from the structure of the article. There are few arguments for "yes" except to imply an answer by simply using the term.  Probably an analogous situation and method of dealing with it is the Anchor baby article. In that case the term is only used when talking about it as a term and put in quote marks.  Discussions about the issues involved do not use the term and instead use alternate more accurate, neutral and descriptive terms. Hens my attempt to start an "AR-15 style firearms" section.     And "assault weapon" is even more variable and ambiguous than "anchor baby".  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate" is poor word choice in my opinion; "ambiguous" would be better. We already have an article for modular lightweight semi-automatic rifles at AR-15 style rifle. The subject of that article is a family of firearms, not the term "assault weapon" itself (which, of course, is the subject of this article). And no, the AAP position statement doesn't have a place in this article. VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I was overly brief when I used the word "legitimate". I really meant legitimate in context of using it where it implies that it defines a type of firearm.  Second would be the questioning applying the word "assault" to what is the most commonly owned general purpose rifle in the US.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no controversy regarding whether the term "assault weapon" is ambiguous. It clearly is, as conclusively shown by the different definitions encountered in various examples of assault weapons legislation. The term becomes unambiguous once defined in the context of a specific law, for example the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Opinions about whether the term "assault weapon" itself is a poison pill meant to influence public perception are indeed opinions, and significant viewpoints on the subject should be discussed with cites and attribution (as we already do history of terminology section). VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wording in Lead
I improved the wording and you reverted me. Almost every expert source stated throughout the article claims that "assault weapons" are only semi-automatic and that "assault rifles" are always select fire, yet you reverted me and claimed I was wrong. The sources state that although the terms are often used interchangeably, the expert definitions are completely different, and it is necessary for readers to know this. Bill Williams 05:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "which can also refer to only" is unnecessarily confusing and just misleads readers who do not know the difference between the terms. Bill Williams 05:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of examples throughout the article that disprove your assertion, including the definitions in the first main body section. Even the articles you cite above do not support your claim about "only semi-automatic", e.g., the New York Times article you cited : "firearms included under any assault weapons ban are usually semiautomatic" (emphasis added). Please note that the fact that "assault weapons" are usually defined as semi-automatic is already in the first lead paragraph. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Assault weapons are only semi-automatic, the term has just been misused by the public. Not a single expert opinion cited anywhere in this article claims that assault weapons can be fully automatic. One of the only definitions of assault weapons as fully automatic is Merriam Webster, which is grammar experts and not firearms experts and cannot be used for something like this, and a Colorado law, which again cannot be used as an expert opinion when examples such as Indiana trying to define the number pi show how state law is not somehow fact. Bill Williams 05:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I added "primarily defined" instead of "only" to the part about assault weapons being semi automatic, therefore there is no confusion about there being a single definition, and there is no expert disagreement that "assault rifles" are selective fire. Bill Williams 05:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting sourced content. Not a single expert source disagrees that assault weapons are primarily defined as semi automatic while assault rifles are select fire. Your personal opinion does not dictate what the facts are on the matter. Bill Williams 05:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I already stated, the fact that assault weapons are usually defined as semi-automatic is already in the first lead paragraph. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There are people who deliberately want confusion between assault weapons (civilian firearms that the military does not use) and assault rifles (which the military uses and civilians essentially can't buy) and would not want the key distinction made which is fully automatic capability. Bill Williams, I 100% agree with you in spirit and 50% in content. While one can claim exceptions to any definition of a word to the point of making it unusable, every widespread an useful meaning of the assault weapon term excludes selective fire /fully automatic (because the latter are essentially already prohibited) and so I agree with Bill that the wording in question in the body should reflect that and not say or imply otherwise. But Bill I think that you are IMHO mis-interpreting that first sentence in the lead as saying "sometimes selective fire". IMO it is a sentence that acknowledges that it is a variable term and gives a typical definition without even implying that it can include fully automatic. And that the main meaning of the term in the lead sentence is "semi-automatic, not manual". Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have any sources that say "assault weapon" and full auto (or similar)? I think some audit assault weapon laws have included some bolt action/"less than semi auto" (my term) based on internal magazine capacity or animation type (I think several call out 50bmg). I'm ok with "typically describe semi-auto ..." but we should be careful about claiming the term is used to describe full auto without good sourcing. Springee (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what I am saying... It is insane that on numerous other articles, expert opinions are utilized and unreliable sources on the matter are ignored, but in this article, editors take the opinions of people who know nothing about guns and put them in this article as fact. The vast majority of expert opinions on the matter state that "assault rifles" are selective-fire, and that is not at all disputed in the article on assault rifles. This article should also clearly state that while the term is used interchangeably with "assault weapon", assault weapons are typically defined as "semi-automatic" while assault rifles are selective fire. Bill Williams 18:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably fine to say "typically defined as". Since tomorrow some new assault weapons law could be passed that includes full auto and lever actions we shouldn't suggest that the definition is specifically limited to only semi-auto but clearly that is typically part of the definition.  Springee (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If any of you want to read the actual article, the second sentence in the lead already says, "the definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms". The first lead paragraph also ends with a quote from the U.S. DOJ that says, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the material in the body involved in recent edits is more problematic than what is in in the beginning of the lead.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding "typically defined as" to improve a sentence that babbles about irrelevant factoids. Assault rifles using intermediate cartridges is a less significant difference between them and "assault weapons" than selective fire. Bill Williams 06:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding redundant information to the lead. There is no reason to state the same information three times about "semi-automatic". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In doing as WfD suggested and rereading the text I think they are correct. The added text wasn't really helping make things clearer.  That said, can we work on this just a bit, "It is often used interchangeably with the term "assault rifle", which can also refer to only selective fire rifles that use intermediate cartridges."?  That about, "it is sometimes used instead of the term "assault rifle" which refers to select fire rifles using intermediate cartridges" (or similar).  I think the long standing version does read a bit awkwardly.  I'm not sure if we should included "often" (vs sometimes vs nothing to suggest frequency).  I also think the "refer to only" part is oddly phrased.  Springee (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The portion about intermediate cartridges only confuses readers unless you clarify that all assault rifles use those cartridges, while only some "assault weapons" use them while many use smaller ones like 9mm. I think adding all that would be unnecessarily long, but just because Wally thinks he can read a reader's mind, does not mean they understand the difference between assault weapons and assault rifles. I can assure you that most readers never bother to glance at the body of an article. It should at least state something like "The term "assault weapon" is often used interchangeably with the term "assault rifle", but under most definitions, assault weapons are only semi-automatic, while assault rifles are selective fire." Bill Williams 23:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that assault weapons are usually defined as semi-automatic is already in the first lead paragraph literally twice. Your suggestion would add nothing but unnecessary redundant language. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I support Bill Williams with striving for clarity (particularly on the distinction between what's gets covered by this term and military firearms) on a term where many deliberately want to avoid clarity. But I support the lead sentence as-is. I think that Bill is viewing it differently than the way that it would be commonly read. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

AP Stylebook and "Assault Rifle vs Assault Weapon"
my edit was reverted by as "undue content" and was placed in the lead instead. I understand the part about interchangeably and "can refer to" since it is true that the terms are conflated, but I still think the the sentence "The AP Stylebook suggests that newsrooms avoid the term "assault weapon" and instead use the term "semi-automatic rifle[40]" belongs in the lead, because the one definition there is from 1994, and since then the main usage of the term by journalists has been disputed, so the AP publishing a main guideline is important and relevant in my opinion. Bill Williams 18:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is one of the most significant parts of the article, along with the fact that the definitions of assault weapons are frequently debated and have changed over time. Major aspects of the body are supposed to be summarized in the lead. See WP:LEAD. We do not simply list any particular guidance or definitions we personally find relevant. The guidance by the AP stylebook is only briefly mentioned in the body, and the part you inserted in the lead was not discussed in the main body at all, which would definitely make it inappropriate for the lead per the MOS guideline: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I applaud your approach. And the AP approach is an improvement. But "semi-automatic rifle" is also broader than the topic at hand. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph is somewhat hard to read and I propose to write something similar to this instead:
 * "The term "assault rifle" is frequently used interchangeably with the term "assault weapon". (source 39, page is missing in quote btw) An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. (use sources from assault rifle). Selective-fire rifles are categorized as machine guns and civilian ownership has been tightly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act and since 1986 under the Firearm Owners Protection Act. "Assault weapon" legislation is not applicable to assault rifles, because assault rifles are selective fire rifles regulated as machine guns. Legally, the terms are exclusive. The AP stylebook suggests to use "semi-automatic rifle" for a rifle that fires each time the trigger is pulled and avoid the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon"."(source 40) Don Fuerte (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. One tweak might be to provide a brief def of "selective fire" in addition to the internal link. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2022
Semi automatic is not correct, quit changing it. Redacted 50.45.135.140 (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#128156;  melecie   talk  - 05:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

By the definition provided you are saying a handgun is an assault weapon
This definition seems overly vague and encompassing of almost all firearms. Semi-auto just means that you have to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That includes every firearm that has more than one round. Think about it a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun would not be semi-auto as you have to manually put the next round in. Fully automatic weapons can only be possessed by active duty military, and law enforcement officers. All handguns have pistol grips and almost all are semi-automatic. It seems disingenuous and misleading to label these as assault weapons.

Growing up (born in Southern California in the 80’s) the definition of assault weapon seemed pretty well defined as fully automatic military grade weapons. The armalite rifle, commonly known as the AR-15 is the consumer rifle made only in semi-automatic. While the AR-15 resembles military assault weapons in appearance, the lack of fully automatic is a significant disadvantage against fully automatic weapons. Any handgun would be even more disadvantaged to fully automatic military grade assault weapons.

The definition provided by Wikipedia lumps fully automatic military and police grade weapons in with semi automatic consumer grade rifles, semi automatic shotguns and almost all handguns into the same category of “assault weapons “ because they have a pistol grip. I believe this is misleading and disingenuous to make the definition so broad that it encompasses such extreme differences in force and defense of very different firearms. 174.212.171.63 (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 90% of what you say is true. The 10% where you are wrong is blaming Wikipedia. Wikipedia merely documents what has been called "assault weapons" especially in various governmental regulations.  For example, the last federal "assault weapons" ban did ban many common handguns.   Also, Wikipedia does not lump fully automatic firearms under "assault weapons"; au contraire, it helps educate on that distinction.   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
the picture that’s used to explain “assault weapon” is a normal ar-15 not an assault weapon 172.58.155.241 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BilCat (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree with the OP that there's some ambiguity that needs to be addressed. I didn't remove the image, but I clarified the caption. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's worse, as you used the term "assault rifle", not assault weapon. The reason I asked for source was that I had no clue what the OP actually meant, and was hoping a source would clear it up. Since your change didn't help, I've reverted it. BilCat (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead section also uses the term "assault rifle". I wrote that it isn't an assault rifle (which has a specific definition) but qualifies as an assault weapon (a different thing) by some definitions. It was quite clear to me that the OP was confused about ambiguous terms, and instead of removing the image, I clarified the caption. And I have just done so again, in a different way. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You're still trying to fix something that ain't broken. As far as I can tell, the IP either meant that that the AR-15 in the image is a full auto/select-fire weapon, or else thinks an assault weapon is full auto/select fire. From the image info, the AR-15 in the photo is a semiautomatic weapon, and thus meets the main definition of assault weapon. BilCat (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the request is different from mine. The IP said the picture is that of a "normal AR-15 not an assault weapon", suggesting confusion on the IP's part about what an assault weapon actually is. I clarified that it isn't an assault rifle but meets some definitions of assault weapon. With that new caption, it serves as an excellent illustration for the second paragraph of the lead, which says the two terms are often interchanged even though one term is actually well defined. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In truth, I doubt even the IP knows exactly what they meant, which is why I didn't try to act on it. Regardless, your change is still unnecessary in my opinion, as it says more than is necessary in a caption, besides being a bit confusing. BilCat (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let it go then. If the IP comes back and clarifies what was meant, we can revisit. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead to read, "most often used by proponents of gun control"
I made an edit, since reverted, that would suggest that the lead state that this term (in the United States) is most often used by proponents of gun control.

Sources at a glance:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
 * https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-myths-on-assault-weapons-and-semiautomatic-firearms
 * https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/gun-experts-say-theres-no-such-thing-as-an-assault-weapon ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 16:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed phrasing seems "off" as it is an oversimplification. We already cover the actual usage of the term in the "History of terminology" section. Lead summarizes the body; it isn't the place to introduce novel changes. VQuakr (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources here, and others, support this change. In the interest of BRD, I have made the change. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I would conversationally agree that this is a term most often used by those wishing to enact some type of gun control, the fact is "assault weapon" has been legally defined by the US at the federal level in 1994 as well as by a number of states. Since it has been legally defined (even if the specifics of the definition can be questioned) I don't think "most often used" is a good addition.  The reference and view point is probably DUE in the body of the article but I don't see it being a good addition to the opening sentence.  Springee (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is defined as you describe. We had a (now defunct) federal law with a "Assault weapon" title that banned AR style firearms but I'm not even sure that it defined them as "assault weapons". Because the same law with the "assault weapon" title also banned pistols commonly carried by police. Other "assault weapon" laws have other definitions. I'm not one to try to put in or take out things in the lead for effect but to be informative, it is good to highlight that it is a variable-use term and that it would be informative to point out it's main usage. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That kind of hits on my point. Various governments have setup rules to define "assault weapon".  I would never claim they all made sense, just that it has been a legally defined term.  Springee (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)