Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Capitalization - not WP:MOS - of federal assault weapons ban

The term “federal assault weapons ban” is not consistently capitalized in sources. In government documents, it is only regularly capitalized in titles. Ditto for the major newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, (New York) Daily News, New York Post, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News (only in some headlines, depending on the individual paper’s style guide). Therefore, per MOS:CAPS and WP:SOFIXIT I will be correcting this in the Federal assault weapons ban page and related articles. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please read WP:DISRUPT and WP:GAME. Nobody is accusing you of any of these things yet. I certainly am not. But you need to understand that your edits and posts are coming dangerously close. If you are a new user to Wikipedia as you claim, I implore you to take things down a notch, observe how things are done, then jump in. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Sue. Since August 9, I am following Wikipedia guidelines about when to be WP:BOLD and when to be WP:CAREFUL. Also, just to be clear, if I’ve claimed to be a new Wikipedia user, I didn’t mean that. I have used it for many years, but in 2007 I registered a user name so I could add external links to some articles about Beatles album art. Another editor deleted them and - since the Beatles aren’t that important to me, and since I was a new Wikipedia editor – I didn’t revert them. In 2010, I edited one external link in a politician’s WP page. My first edit on a page (this page) that deals with a controversial topic wasn't until October 2012. I never received a watchlist report about the page, or I might have returned sooner. FWIW: I have pretty extensive experience as an editor - just not as a WP editor. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Article moved (renamed) without discussion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As far as I can tell, the article Federal assault weapons ban (only first letter capitalized, per WP:NC and WP:TITLEFORMAT) was created December 30, 2002. Note that when you follow that link, the title currently (as of 08/25/13) appears as Federal Assault Weapons Ban because, unless I am missing something, on October 19, 2006, that's what it was moved to (renamed).

Per WP:MOVE guidelines about what to do before moving a page: "If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section 'Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves' in Wikipedia:Requested moves."

I am not commenting on whether or not the user who moved/renamed the article did so in good faith. Perhaps he/she didn't know about WP:TITLEFORMAT. As I wrote two days ago, the term “federal assault weapons ban” is not consistently capitalized in sources. In government documents, it is only regularly capitalized in titles. Ditto for the major newspapers (only in some headlines, depending on the individual paper’s style guide).

Although WP:REQMOVE says, "If a desired move is a revert of an undiscussed move where discussion is needed, please feel free to move the page yourself," I am afraid to do so (considering the comments to/about me here since August 9). If this move/rename was discussed previously, would someone kindly provide the link(s) to the discussion? Otherwise, I am respectfully asking that another editor make the move and start a discussion per WP:RM/CM.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That was seven years ago. Rather than revisiting that rename, I suggest we start fresh and discuss any possible renames from the current title -- Federal Assault Weapons Ban -- in this talk page section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mudwater, that's a respectable suggestion, too. Lightbreather (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what your game is, but if you look back WP:TITLEFORMAT, in its current form, did not exist on October 19, 2006. If you think it should be renamed, start the discussion here at the bottom of the page. EricSerge (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please strike out your "game" comment? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is 'controversial' about the move? How, exactly, will the article be improved by lowercasing the title? Oh, I know, there's bunches of policies, guidelines, suggestions, etc hither and yon on wikipedia. But the name of the act is in fact rendered inconsistently by a wide variety of sources, therefore I can see no argument that can be presented that would suggest that the lowercase version is more accurate than the uppercased version. The title has become well known, and I'd say it's a proper noun at this point. Seven years says to me that this is a settled matter. I see no value in discussion of this intensely trivial matter. Perhaps the quickest resolution would be a vote? Anastrophe (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I also must add that I see this as clear evidence of WP:DISRUPT. The original move was so uncontroversial seven years ago that nobody even thought twice about discussing it. Suddenly, in 2013, this is a burning issue of accuracy? Anastrophe (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: The title being capitalized like a proper noun for almost seven years. Well, it was not capitalized for almost four years before that. But either way, Wikipedia says silence means nothing.

Also, since several editors have commented on my posts as posts, and on my intentions, I must share that I am feeling a bit harrassed here. I am acting in good faith. I am putting hours into trying to comment according to WP:5P. If others don't believe me, should I just stop trying to be a productive participant? Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: your rationale for making this change is unsupportable. Some use the name as a proper noun; others do not. I can cite specific, reliable sources that spell it as a proper noun, such as feinstein.senate.gov, and Kopel's study. You made a claim that the capitalization creates undue 'weight'. Undue weight suggests bias. What bias - specifically - do you see being promulgated by referring to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban as such? If you cannot specifically identify the bias you wish to correct, then making the claim is tendentious. If you refuse to inform your fellow editors of the problems you are trying to correct, which requires identifying them, (including the discussion of Content Fork and Primary Topic, wherein I asked pointedly for you to identify the problems you wish to fix, with no response) then it becomes rather clear that this is tendentious and disruptive of the collaborative process. I repeat: this is a collaborative process. If you will not collaborate, but instead insist that your changes are the only changes that are acceptable (see 'remove cosmetic' above), what else are we to assume? Anastrophe (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, I was out of town, as I indicated elsewhere on this page, from Aug. 26 through Aug. 31. I apologize again for not being faster with my replies.

You didn't give a link, but here is one for the results of a search on “federal assault weapons ban” on Feinstein.senate.gov. It is given in lowercase in every instance except where it is a title or header.

Koper only capitalizes it consistently in titles. Only some of the major newspapers capitalize it in headers (depending on their style guides), none capitalize it consistently in stories (in fact, most don’t). The links in the References section of the article are inconsistent as well.

The title of this article, as well as whether it's capitalized, or how, is important for at least three reasons.

One, which I gave before is WP:NCCAPS is critical to Wikipedia’s credibility.

Two is because the article’s lead says the article is about the expired federal assault weapons ban (singular) of 1994, but the Criteria section references the previous and proposed assault weapons bans – which have different criteria. If the article is about the previous and proposed bans then one proper noun cannot apply to both.

Three the preponderence of sources use mostly lowercase in running text.

I propose, again, #1. That we change the title back to “Federal assault weapons ban.” Or #2, if the article is primarily about the expired ban, name it “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which is at least used CSR-R42957 and CDC-RR5214. (Leave the lead as is and have a separate section about the currently proposed ban, and not try to mingle it in the expired ban criteria.) Or #3, if the article is equally about the expired and the proposed bans, name "Assault weapons ban" or "Federal assault weapons ban" and include both in the lead.

I propose, again, #1. If the article is equally about the expired and the proposed bans, name it "Federal assault weapons ban" or simply "Assault weapons ban" and include both in the lead. Or #2, if the article is primarily about the expired ban, name it “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which is at least used CSR-R42957 and CDC-RR5214. (Leave the lead as is and have a separate section about the currently proposed ban, and not try to mingle it in the expired ban criteria.)

WP:POV has been mentioned elsewhere, but POV doesn't seem to be the issue here. It's mostly credibility (as cited above), conciseness, and consistency. Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment, but I don't agree that this is a matter "critical" to WP's credibility - bear in mind that WP:NCCAPS is a guideline, not policy. I don't see the use of caps as an endorsement in some fashion. I just did some deeper searching (meaning, drilling deeper than the first and second pages of G results), and while there are inconsistencies to be found all over the place - 'fawb', 'fAWB', 'FAWB', 'Fawb', 'fAWb' '1994AWB', etc - in most instances the name is in lower case in body text. I'm against renaming it to 'fawb 1994', since at this time, there has only been one fawb, so that would be akin to anticipating a future awb.

This article is about the fawb. I would generally be in favor of scrubbing content about the proposed AWB's - since proposed but not enacted laws actually run into the tens of thousands every year, and are normally not particularly notable. However, the attempts have been noted in reliable sources, so that would tend to suggest perhaps some mention is in order, but restricted to its own section. Anastrophe (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am delighted to have used the WP lingo well-enough to be understood! The "federal" part of the title is of less concern to me right now than the capitalization part, so bear with me while I try to explain.

The WP:TITLE policy gives us five characteristics to consider, and, in regards to WP:TITLEFORMAT, to use lower case, except for proper names. Yes, the capitalization convention described in WP:NCCAPS is a guideline, but it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow."

To many Wikipedia readers, whether the article is capitalized or not is probably not critical. It might even escape conscious notice. But to a trained editor or writer, it means a lot. "Hmmm. Most reliable sources use sentence case for this term. Do Wikipedia editors know something that other reliable sources don't know? ... Unlikely. Then why are they presenting this term in title case? If it's unintentional, what else don't they know? If it's intentional, why?" This is where a choice to deviate from the standard can cause credibility issues. Many Wikipedia readers might sense this problem, even if they're not conscious of it. It's something that gets filed away from primary school English.

So for us to choose to capitalize "federal assault weapons ban" would be akin to capitalizing "assault weapon." As I said, I am agreeable to keeping "federal" in the title for now, but I really feel that restoring it to its original, lowercase format is well-supported.

I also agree with your proposal to move mention of proposed bans to their own section or sections. (As a heads-up, although I am happy to just make these changes for now, I think editors of this page should consider the possibility that someday, someone may want to discuss the article's systemic bias. I am NOT doing that at this time, but it occurs to me that assault weapons bans aren't just a U.S. issue; they're global.)

What next? Lightbreather (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's used as a proper noun, so it should be in upper case. Leave it be and move on. But this is exactly the kind of trivial issue that swamps real discussion. I am beginning to think that this is being done intentionally. One look at the size of this discussion shows how much time has been wasted on this already. This is not critical. It is trivial. We are talking about three little letters here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey, should article be moved from its current title of "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" to "Federal assault weapons ban"?

• Oppose. This change does not improve the article, the rationale for the change isn't supported by a consensus of sources. Anastrophe (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This change would return the title to its original format, which was conventional WP:TITLEFORMAT: use lowercase, except for proper nouns. Per WP:NCCAPS: "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility." Further, the unconventional usage of the term in the title contributes to its improper usage in the body text. It is akin to changing the title of the "Assault weapon" article to "Assault Weapon." The usage adds weight to the term whether the reader is aware of it or not. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It should not have been moved in the first place per WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:NCCAPS. GregJackP Boomer! 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• STRONGLY Oppose per WP:POVNAME which reads "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." ...and I am about one inch away from making a formal complaint about these disruptions. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Don't mess with it now If we took up the question again, we'd need to start by learning whether that title exists as a title in the real world. (in not the official title, possibly as the short title or sales title that most bills are given) North8000 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure review - request to reopen discussion on article title

The discussion about the article's title was closed in the middle of the discussion. Anastrophe and I were finding some common ground.

I will state again, for the record, I am here in good faith. When I delete without discussion, I am told to discuss. When I discuss without a detailed argument, my argument is dismissed. When I take the time (sometimes hours, because I check sources, as well as WP policy and style) to compose a detailed comment, some accuse me of being disruptive. Again, short of quitting, I am doing the best I can to follow WP rules and the requests some editors here have requested.

The discussion had been open less than two weeks, and I was out of town for part of that time. I was giving Anastrophe the feedback he'd asked for. Lightbreather (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Common ground was unfortunately very tenuous, and was broken with your penultimate comment. I was very disturbed by this sentence towards the end of your comments: "As I said, I am agreeable to keeping "federal" in the title for now,[...]". Removal of "federal" from the article or title has never been a matter of discussion at all. This unfortunately strikes off into yet new territory, which is untenable. I can't imagine any rationale under which 'federal' would be removed from the title. Since it was never discussed, the degree to which you are 'agreeable' to making a change you've just proposed with no discussion is - I'm sorry - disruptive. Either explain the rationale for dropping 'federal' from the article name, or move on. I won't be party to incrementalism - make a drawn out series of small changes that in the end completely reframe the article to a specific POV. Anastrophe (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You and I were in the middle of discussing this when the discussion was closed. That's my objection and reason for asking to have the discussion re-opened. How could the closer know how you were going to respond, or decide in your place that the discussion was closed? Unless I'm reading the revision history wrong, less than two hours passed between my response to you and someone else choosing to close the discussion, without comment from you (such as those you've expressed since). From this and other discussions it's clear you're a very active editor here, and many (perhaps most?) of your comments supported.

As for your concern, my understanding that part of the process is working toward consensus. The topic is about capitalization of the title. I proposed putting the current title back in lowercase, which is how it appears in the running text of the majority of reliable sources, or, if the use of a proper noun is important to others, to use "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994," which is used by a preponderence of sources when it is capitalized in running text.

When editors agree to something, do they all swear to never bring it up again? The main reason I brought "federal" up is because I think editors of this page ought to consider that someday, someone might challenge it - not because I'm planning to. I'd like to get on with things below/beyond the title, like developing a legal challenges section, as you asked me to do. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to re-open the discussion, then by all means we should do so. However, the discussion was closed because the consensus to keep the title as it is, was overwhelming, the idea to change the case being pushed by only a single editor, to revert a minor edit that has stood for seven years. Changing the proposal mid-stream, and introducing new caveats from thin air (ie. Removing the word "federal") serve only to further muddy the waters on an already trivial issue, one in which virtually everyone participating is in agreement. There are much more important things that can, and should, be discussed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A preponderence of reliable, verifiable sources use "federal assault weapons ban" in sentence case (except for some who use title case in titles and headers). I see three votes opposing reverting the title back to "Federal assault weapons ban," two supporting, and two neutral or unstated. I also see an open discussion stopped midstream. Where is the overwhelming consensus to oppose standard, reference-work convention and keep the title case? Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm required to do this (since its not about an editor), but since the discussion was ended here, I started a request on this topic at the No original research noticeboard. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Original Research? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. GregJackP Boomer! 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No discussion about original research has occured. This is the first time any of us has heard of this. If there was a concern about WP:OR, why wasn't it raised in the previous discussion? You repeatedly keep re-starting this discussion, yet none of your opening statements have ever mentioned WP:OR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See the first sentence of this section. The discussion was closed before it was completed. Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of wikileaks as a source in lede

The recently added info in the lede pertaining to constitutional challenges to the AWB uses wikileaks as the source. wikileaks is generally not considered a reliable source. I'd recommend finding a reliable source for the report, otherwise it should be struck from the lede. Ancillarily, info in the lede should be expanded upon within the body of the article, but there are no details about the challenges in the article. Please add specifics regarding these challenges, using reliable sources. Absent both a reliable source and further details in the body, it's not ready for inclusion in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I added another citation that supports the previous citation. There is no public access to the reports cited via Congressional Research Service, but the WikiLeaks website has an exact copy of CRS-RL32077. In addition, the Federation of American Scientists website has an exact copy (NOT A TRANSCRIPTION) of CRS-R42957, in which author Victoria S. Chu, Legislative Attorney, acknowledges, "T.J. Halstead was the initial author of RL32077, “The Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Challenges and Legislative Issues." In both cases, the URL provided gives the reader a web page to access the source, since the CRS does not. However, neither citation claims that the authors or publishers of the original reports was WikiLeaks or the FAS. If you have a better way to format the citation, I'm open to suggestions. Lightbreather (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you now have reliable source for the claim in the lede, you should remove the wikileaks citation. Do you intend to expand on these details in the article? They should be covered as they are relevant to the article. Noting them only in the lede is not desireable however. Anastrophe (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the citation we're discussing - the one removed - is at url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32077. You're first argument was that Wilkileaks is "generally not considered a reliable source." However, per the Wikileaks discussion in the article you cited, it may be. Further, External links/perennial websites says, "this page does not prescribe any recommendations of what action to take if one encounters any of these sites linked within articles. This list is only an aid to ongoing discussion surrounding the use of these sites, final consensus is yet to be determined." Finally, per WP:CITELEAD, "complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." This particular citation is less about WS:SOURCE and more about WP:SOURCEACCESS. Therefore, I am restoring the citation. If someone has evidence that this particular citation is not WP:VERIFY, I have not seen it. If a better link for readers to see a duplicate of Congressional Research Service Report RL32077 is available, I haven't found it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks documents have no provenance. None. There is no mechanism to verify that a document on wikileaks is what it claims to be. We are free to believe that a document on wikileaks is genuine, but it requires an assumption of verifiability which does not exist. I believe the document in question is genuine. You do too, apparently. But that doesn't change the material facts. It's not a reliable source under any objective criteria, because there is no mechanism to verify whether it's real or not. The onus is upon the editor who wants the information included to prove verifiability; the onus is not on other editors to prove that it is not. I can't think of any good reason to use an unreliable, unverified source in the article, not to mention the lede. Find a reliable source, or remove the citation. Anastrophe (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. By definition, "leaked information" cannot be considered reliable, since it has no true "source," it is simply a rumor. Find that information somewhere reliable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to create a "Legal challenges" (or similar) section in the article to expand upon this info, but as I've stated previously, I only have so much time to work on this article, and this isn't the only item being discussed at this time. Anyone who is truly able to edit from a truly WP:NPOV is welcome to help. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

" Anyone who is truly able to edit from a truly WP:NPOV is welcome to help." This is a fairly offensive bit of rhetoric. If you were assuming good faith of your fellow editors, there'd be no need for the sentence at all. Anastrophe (talk)

I apologize. Couldn't you just have asked for an apology, instead of assuming not good faith? Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the above looks to me like wiki-lawyering. If you have a pdf of a CRS report, complete with all of it's numbering, authors, publication data etc., to try to exclude it based on where you got the pdf from is not plausible. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would a relatively uncontroversial congressional report only be available on Wikileaks? Congressional reports are part of the public record, are they not? I suppose it may have been supressed on political grounds, but I don't find that terribly plausible. I repeat: it looks genuine me too; however, wikileaks is a problematic source on a number of levels, and the general feeling seems to be that it's appropriate only for matters that reference wikileaks in and of itself. Perhaps it would be worth contacting one or more of the listed authors of the report to see if they have any insight. Anastrophe (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Most likely because it would take hours to find another place to get it.North8000 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Convenience, or lack of same, really isn't much of an argument in favor of using unreliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this from the Wikipedia article on the CRS: "CRS reports are widely regarded as in depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made available to members of the public by CRS, except in certain circumstances." Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This quote (partial) is from the Peer Editing Help archive:

Again, it can be used to basically source quotes, but not to source the meaning of those quotes. That is, if some document is reproduced at Wikileaks, you can only use the document to verify what the document says, but not to analyze what it means, and even that is tough, because to say that any particular document released on Wikileaks is significant or "proves" something, you'd need a secondary source (like a newspaper or magazine or something) which says that it means that. Otherwise, there's not much to do with it, since analyzing a primary source (like a government memorandum) would be original research, which is not what we do at Wikipedia. We wait for others to analyze primary sources and report what they find, then we aggregate and report those findingins in our own words. That's basically what Wikipedia does: find stuff other people have already figured out and re-report it here. If no one figured something out before Wikipedia did, Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to report it, including the importance and meaning of government memoranda leaked through Wikileaks. --Jayron32 03:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A lot seems mixed up there. First it seems to be (incorrectly) implying that documents from Wikileaks are mostly or all primary sources. And then it seems to build other things upon that incorrect premise. Also it seem to be discussing unusual types of uses rather than the most common one, which is as a source and cite for information put into Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is a mix of info in that peer forum reply, but for this discussion the main question is: Can you use a Wikileaks document (in this case, a PDF copy of a CSR report) to verify what the document says? This CSR report (RL32077, author T.J. Halstead) is later cited in another CSR report (R42957, author Vivian S. Chu) that is available online at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf‎. However, the only online link to Halstead's report is via Wikilinks.

I'll be happy to just cite the paper report itself, if someone could direct me on how to do that. (One can ask their Senator or U.S. Rep for a copy, if they're suspicious of the Wikileaks PDF file.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't cite anything that is unsourced. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe a reliable source is still a reliable source, even if it may not be easily accessed - as in the case of Congressional Research Service documents. If I am wrong, please explain. (Per Anastrophe's suggestion, I am working on a legal challenges section, though I don't know how quickly it will be done.) Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources and essays Wikipedia:Offline_sources and Wikipedia:Convenience_link but that raises the issues of 'It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively plausible to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.' which certainly applies to wikileaks, and most importantly Wikipedia:Cite#Say_where_you_got_it. The CSR can certainly be cited even if offline, but only if you have actually read it. You have not, you have read the wikileaks copy, which is inherently not trustworthy, and considered a WP:PRIMARY source for wikipedia Wikipedia:ELPEREN#Wikileaks (IE, at most we could say that wikileaks says, that the csr says, etc) . Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Items in the lead should be covered to some depth elsewhere in the article. It is not appropriate to have stand-alone information in the lead. Such information should be moved elsewhere in the article. The lead should stand on its own, but the items within should all be covered at greater depth, preferably with their own sections.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Compliance section

In the compliance section, I noticed that in the quoted section are mentioned "AK-47s, MAC-10s, Uzis, AR-15s", but for some reason only the MAC-10s are linked. I think that as a matter of consistency they should all be linked, or none of them be linked. All four models are linked elsewhere in the article. I was about to be bold, but then I thought that perhaps there was some reason for this that I may have been unaware of. Does anyone know if there is a particular reason that only the MAC-10s are linked? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

An excellent observation, but I would propose removing the MAC-10 link rather than adding links to the others. WP says to avoid over-linking. Links should help readers understand the topic they came to the page to learn about. Understanding how specific firearms work is not necessary to understanding the assault weapons ban of 1994. Understanding the difference between automatic and semiautomatic is. A better link would be to "assault weapon," but since there is already a link to that in the lead, is it WP cool to repeat it?

FWIW, I think there are a lot of distracting links on the page - but yes, maybe some missing or misplaced important links, too.Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed. no need for the additional link. All the other links to listed firearms under the 'Criteria' section are appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! But re: the Criteria section, "appropriate" is a first person value judgement not supported in this case by WP policy and guidelines.  ;-)

All those weapons may be listed in the assault weapons ban, but is reading about each one necessary to understanding the article? Consider the comments in the archived peer review on this article. In addition to being over-linked, the article is very “listy.” Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

no, it is not a first person value judgement. It is entirely appropriate, customary, normal, non-controversial, trivial, to wikilink to specific things that are mentioned in an article that readers may wish to learn more about. Wikilinks are *always* desireable. wikilink overloading is not desireable, but the specific weapons mentioned in the ban, WLing to them is just fine. I'm not going to get into another pissing match about utter trivialities, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

referencing a six year old peer-review is not helpful. This article is not the same article as it was six years ago. Start a new peer review if you must. A six year old peer review is as useful as tits on a boar. Anastrophe (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I need to add this: you said "but is reading about each one necessary to understanding the article?". No, absolutely not. That's why we provide wikilinks so that the reader can learn more, if they choose to. We aren't forcing anyone to read anything. We're offering encyclopedic information that's related to this article, if the reader wants to read it. This is the sine qua non of an electronic encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The comment about "appropriate" was meant as collegial ribbing, hence the emoticon. (You had actually used the exact term "first person value judgement" less than a month ago in reply to me.) If emoticons are not used on WP, I apologize.

A suggestion was made about links in the Compliance section. I replied and added an opinion about general over-linking in the article. You followed with a conclusive statement that the links in the Criteria section are appropriate. To not reply would imply that I agreed. WP:OVERLINK says overlinking makes it difficult to identify links likely to significantly aid the reader's understanding. For this reason, I disagree with you - that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no overlinking in the article that meets the criteria of WP:OVERLINK. Anastrophe (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. All I'm saying is that I disagree with your interpretation. Lightbreather (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT: Legal challenges to the ban

Please make comments at bottom. Thanks.

A February 2013 report to the U.S. Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." Per the report, challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed by the courts, but challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.

The ban did not constitute an impermissible Bill of Attainder per Navegar, Inc. v. United States. The ban was not unconstitutionally vague per United States v. Starr. And the ban was not contrary to the Ninth Amendment per San Diego Gun Rights Committee v. Reno.

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress’ authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban’s prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"

Opponents also challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. However, the reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I note with interest that the first reference uses "Assault Weapon Ban" repeatedly in body text.

I waited to respond to this comment until I was sure we (group) were on track for discussing legal challenges and not the article title. Yes, the author does use that term throughout the report: in the TOC and body text she uses "1994 Assault Weapons Ban" 11 times, and "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994" five times; in the title only (which repeats as a page header) she uses "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (full title "Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues"). Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Doh! Forgot to add, she uses "federal assault weapons ban" only once in the body text - and in lower case. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Separately, You're employing primary source material for all of your citations, which is not appropriate. This needs to be built from reliable secondary sources. Rulings are rarely found on contentious issues without plentiful secondary sources commenting on them. We aren't here to parrot what the courts say, but to cite what reliable sources said about the court's rulings. You also duplicate article quotes in the citations themselves. I see no good reason for doing so, notwithstanding that the sources are all primary, so the whole section really needs to be redone from the ground up. Anastrophe (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur. This needs to be based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Also, if you are going to use legal sources, you need to cite them correctly - I corrected those in the draft section. GregJackP Boomer! 11:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the main problem. There is a reason for the limitations on primary sources and this illustrates it. The impacts include the fundamental nature of this which is a "construction" both in the wording and the WP-ediitor selection of the primary sources themselves and and wp-editor selection selection and extraction of material from the primary sources. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the problems with sourcing for the proposed section (see WP:BOMBARD), I don't see how a section like this will improve the article. All such legislation has legal challenges. If you look at similar articles, you'll find that they generally aren't listed or covered like this. This is because the data is not significant, and does not improve the article. I don't see how these challenges are any different. If there were something significant about a particular challenge, I would say to include it, but as far as I can tell, these are nothing more than the typical WP:MILL legal challenges of the kind that one would expect of ANY piece of legislation, so it would not be appropriate to include them, and particularly not an entire section of them. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am working on comments made so far, but I have a question I can't find answer to. When citing a PDF file, for page numbers, when they're not the same, does one use the page number in the PDF file, or the page number printed on the page? If anyone knows the answer, great. Meanwhile, I'll keep looking. Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, now that I have some time, I have added the volume and reporter information to the case cites and Shepardized the cases. Navegar is not a case I would cite. It was distinguished by Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), aff'd sub nom District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), the case that struck down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional. In Parker, the Circuit Court is urged by the D.C. government to apply Navegar to the case, but declined to do so after a fairly extensive discussion of the faults of the Navegar decision. The court basically shredded the Navegar decision without directly overturning it.

The same thing applies to Starr. It is a district court decision and is neither binding authority nor precedential.

Again, there are problems with San Diego Gun Rights Comm. too. This case was decided prior to Heller and subsequent cases note that the decision in San Diego Gun Rights Comm. has been called into doubt by Heller. "[T]he applicability of the standing analysis in Gun Rights Committee to a case involving assertion of individual constitutional guarantees is uncertain. . . ." Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 829 F. Supp. 2d 867, 871 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

Ditto on Olympic Arms - although still technically good law, the decision has many problems. For example, it states that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, which was repudiated by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) in addition to later decisions by the Sixth Circuit. See United States v. Whisnant, 391 Fed.Appx. 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Frazier, 314 Fed.Appx. 801 (6th Cir. 2008).

I would have to object to the inclusion of the material as giving undue weight to a legal position that is no longer valid, especially as it is not supported by any legal treatises or law journals. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Further information from secondary sources:

• Navegar: "Courts would err by adopting the D.C. Circuit's 'credible threat' analysis in Navegar and Seegars, and they should therefore follow the Supreme Court's precedents that require plaintiffs to show that enforcement of the challenged statute is imminent, and not 'imaginary or speculative.'" Joshua Newborn, An Analysis of Credible Threat Standing and Ex Parte Young for Second Amendment Litigation, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 927, 957-58 (2009).

GregJackP Boomer! 01:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

While acknowledging the opinions tendered thus far, I still think a section on challenges would be interesting. The FAWB was notable/notorious, and the decisions in support of it were notable/notorious as well. Contemporaneous to the ban, Heller et al were not yet the law of the land; the errors of those decisions were palpable, and the fact that they would not stand today is notable. But ultimately, I don't really care all that much either way. If it's included, it needs to be properly sourced. If not, it doesn't harm the article, as long as the one-liner that was added to the lede, which prompted this discussion, remains stricken (per UNDUE). Anastrophe (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a section on challenges, I have a problem with the draft section, for the reasons stated. Otherwise, I agree in principle with what you said. If we add a challenges section, it needs to show the challenges, the court decisions at the time, and the current state of the law. That way we can keep it NPOV, and of course it would need to be properly sourced with at least secondary sources. (I don't have a problem with primary sources, so long as we have adequate secondary sources to support the primary sources) GregJackP Boomer! 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a question to anyone who may know. How many challenges were actually made? Were there any challenges that succeeded, even if it were only on a local level? I am afraid that I am not knowledgable enough in the legal subject matter to say. I would suggest that if the consensus is to include the section, that we explore one challenge at a time, to make sure that each is properly sourced. I am still concerned about notability and undue weight. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If primary sources are used, such would descend into a cherry-picking morass. But if an objective quality secondary source on the topic can be found, I think a short section might be good. I say "short" because the main arguments against the ban were that it is a bad idea, not that it is illegal. So a large focus on the latter would be an wp:undue strawman. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is my first draft section. I appreciate the criticism. I think GregJackP and Anastrophe make good points. Please just work with me, to help me learn and to improve the article. I have been practicing in a separate area because I am new to some of the Wikipedia specific citing and formatting policies and guidelines. I will be making some changes on the above draft; I will let you know when I'm done for today. Thanks for your feedback and patience. Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please generate a second draft, rather than modifying the already posted first draft; it changes the contextual meaning of the responses to the draft for readers coming later. Anastrophe (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. That was actually my original plan, but after GregJackP edited some of it, I thought that was what we were going to do. I will post a second draft, as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT2: Legal challenges to the ban

Per Anastrophe's request, I have posted a second draft rather than edit the first draft. GregJackP, I hope I captured your citation corrections.

Please comment at bottom. Thanks.

In a February 2013 Congressional Research Service report to the U.S. Congress titled Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues, Vivian S. Chu said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." Per the report, challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed by the courts, but challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.

The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder. It was not unconstitutionally vague. And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress’ authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban’s prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"

Opponents also challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."

The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment. Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Lightbreather (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that placing the final draft before the current section Efforts to renew the ban might flow into that discussion nicely. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This section needs major work. According to one secondary source, "However, the District of Columbia Circuit has held this law to be vague as applied to a criminal prosecution for possession of an assault weapon." Scott Charles Allen, Notes and Comments: People's Rights Organization, Inc. v. City of Columbus: The Sixth Circuit Shoots Down Another Unconstitutional "Assault Weapons" Ban, 20 Pace L. Rev. 433 (2000). That goes directly against the draft's assertion that the law was not unconstitutionally vague. I'll work on a draft and post it here later. GregJackP Boomer! 17:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your proposal(s), but I also have two questions. Just to be clear, "this law" referred to in the first part of your comment is the City of Columbus law challenged by People's Rights Organization, right? And "the law" referred to in the second part of your comment is the federal assault weapons ban of 1994? Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, "this law" was referring to the Federal AWB statute. In both cases. GregJackP Boomer! 16:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the source, if anyone else wants to read it. I'm going to go read it again. Lightbreather (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

See pp. 441-42, where it talks about the Magaw case (dism'd as not yet ripe) and not unconstitutionally vague on its face (6th Cir.), and then about the Spinner case where the D.C. Cir. held it was unconstitutionally vague as applied. GregJackP Boomer! 18:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I found the pages that mention Magaw, and I found a source for the case/decision - which does use the term "unconstitutionally vague." However, re: U.S. v Spinner, Allan says, "the District of Columbia Circuit has held this law to be vague as applied to a criminal prosecution for possession of an assault weapon." He writes "vague," not "unconstitutionally vague," and I cannot find a source to verify which term was used in the case. Do you have a source for Spinner? Lightbreather (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Spinner is at 152 F.3d 950. It does not use the term "unconstitutionally vague" which is normally used for statutes that are unconstitutional on their face. You'll have to look at the secondary sources to find that, such as the Pace L. Rev. article. Vague as applied means that the statute violated the Constitution in the manner in that it was enforced. If you can get access to Westlaw, "unconstitutionally vague" is used in the Firearms's Law Deskbook, § 10:7. It's also used in several briefs when citing Spinner, but those are primary sources. For example, one brief describes it:

"By contrast, federal law requires the prosecution to prove that a defendant knew all the item's characteristics bringing it within the definition, including that it was manufactured after September 13, 1994. See United States v. Spinner, 152 F.3d 950, 956-57 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (government must prove defendant “knew that the recovered firearm possessed the characteristics that brought it within the scope of the statute”). By incorporating the federal definition but excluding the federal provisions that require notice and scienter, definition (ii) of “large capacity feeding device” is rendered unconstitutionally vague." Appellant's Br., Gun Owners' Action League, Inc. v. Cellucci, 2001 WL 36026090 (C.A.1)

GregJackP Boomer! 21:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Everyone -Can we avoid posting new "drafts" until it has been worked a bit more? It is not constructive to place a whole new "draft" every time a small change or two is made. The last thing anyone wants is for the talk page to be filled with 10-30 similar "drafts". This draft needs to be completely reworked. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a particular law. If someone is talking about reinstating that particular law, this would be the place for it. It's really not the place to cover efforts to create different laws. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000. Unless we misunderstand the scope of the article, I agree. There are in-depth discussions about particular cases in the Firearms case law article, the Supreme Court case section of the Second Amendment article, and other places. If we are going to consider going into lots of detail here, then is the article really about the 1994 ban, or is it about assault weapons bans in general?

Also, inexperience with citing sources in/for Wikipedia articles made me cite the sources given in the first draft improperly, but I believe that I corrected that in the second draft. The court cases/decisions are primary sources, but the Congressional Research Service report by Vivian S. Chu is a secondary source. I think I put down a good foundation, though I agree some balancing info is warranted. I think the arguments that this must be rewritten from scratch or from the ground up is unwarranted. Since I am the less experienced WP editor, can we turn this into a collaborative, constructive lesson instead of a you-did-that-wrong, let-me-do-it-for-you lecture? Lightbreather (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The CRS report is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. It is a government legislative research document. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The CRS report's author analyzed the primary sources (constitution, cases, etc.) and reported on them. CRS reports are widely regarded as in depth, accurate, objective, and timely. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that it wasn't in depth, accurate, objective, and timely. But it is still a primary source, just as a court opinion is a primary source, even though the opinion has analyzed other primary sources, such as the constitution, statutes, briefs by the parties, evidence, etc. You need to find a secondary source, and preferably sources. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:PSTS says primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. (In this case, court documents, and lawyers and judges.) It says secondary sources provide an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. (In this case Ms. Chu.) Of course, there is plenty of discussion about sources. Based on WP policies, please explain how the CRS report R42957 - a CRS Report (R) and not a CRS Research Memo (RM) - is a primary source. Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. The CRS is a PRIMARY source...and this "bogging down" of discussion is exactly why we shouldn't be considering a new section at this time. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The event in question was pending legislation. The report was written by a lawyer employed by Congress to provide information about a matter in front of Congress, in other words, directly involved and not one step removed. We could take it to the RSN, but from past experience they will say it is a primary source. They always do on government reports. You can use a primary source, and the CRS reports are highly accurate, you just need to get some secondary sources. Even if the CRS was, for the sake of argument, a secondary source, you need more than just one secondary source. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The pending legislation was the subject. (S150 was introduced and referred to committee on Jan. 24, 2013, and HR437 was introduced and referred to committee on Jan. 29.) The cases/decisions about AWB 1994 were the events - analyzed in the source in question and published Feb. 14.

CRS offers research and analysis to Congress, but it makes no legislative or policy recommendations. Its works are governed by requirements for confidentiality, timeliness, accuracy, objectivity, balance, and nonpartisanship. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That makes it a primary source, like both Sue and I have said. There is no requirement that a primary source makes policy recommendations, and the other factors are likewise not relevant to whether it is a primary source. GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are 10 examples of Congressional Research Service works recommended by university libraries as secondary sources:

1. UCLA School of Law Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library A Beginner’s Guide to Medicare/Medicaid Research Questions:Secondary Sources Last update: April 27, 2012
2. UC Irvine Law Library Secondary Sources for Legal Research
3. Georgetown Law Library Congressional Investigations Research Guide:Secondary Sources Last update: May 20, 2013
4. Georgia State University Law Library Mergers & Acquisitions Law Last update: April 22, 2013
5. Florida State University College of Law Research Center Copyright Act February 13, 2013
6. Boston University Pappas Law Library Health Law Research Last update: September 9, 2013
7. University of Connecticut University Libraries Federal Legislative History and Analysis:Secondary Sources Last update: February 29, 2012
8. University of Iowa College of Law Library National Security Law:Secondary Sources Last update: July, 22, 2013
9. Emory University School of Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library Bankruptcy Secondary Sources
10. Pace Law School National Environmental Policy Act Legal Research Last update: September 3, 2013

The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired 19 9 years before the CRS report in question was written. The report concentrated on AWB 1994 and cases that had challenged it (events) in 2002 or earlier. It is a secondary source for those events.

My first draft did not include the last paragraph, about the Second Amendment. I hesitated to add it because that part of the report - the last 4 of 17 pages - includes four instances of "could" and a "may" that some might interpret as OR. If you want me to remove that paragraph, I'll be happy to since I was unsure about its inclusion in the first place. I would like to move on now. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are differences in standards for academic use of secondary and primary sources and the definition of them on Wikipedia. If you want to use it, initiate an RfC, because right now the consensus on this talk page is that it is a primary source.

Second, you are basing an entire section on primary sources - and even if that one source is a secondary source, you need more secondary sources.

Third, in the section just below, the current consensus is to not add this section to the article. If you feel you must, go ahead, but either myself or Sue or another editor will revert it based on talkpage consensus. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)