Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Explanation and suggestion for compromise

Prior to Aug. 9, there were 3 uses of "cosmetic" in the Criteria section and 1 use in the Compliance section. The 3 uses in the Criteria section were supported by 1 source citation (Kopel, in the Wall Street Journal) way at the end of the first paragraph, far from the words "cosmetic features". That citation included a quote, which appeared in the References section.

I removed the word "cosmetic" from the Criteria section on Aug. 9, but the change was reverted. I started an RfC on Aug.10. That day, 5 more citations were added. On Aug. 12, I added the quotes to those references (to demonstrate that they do not all use the term "cosmetic features"). So as of Aug. 14, there were the same number of uses of "cosmetic" in the article body, but 6 citations with quotes in the References section.

I suggest as a first step toward compromise that we 1. Delete the 2 extra uses of the word cosmetic in the Criteria section, and 2. Keep 4 of the citations that support the use of "cosmetic" and 3 of the citations that oppose its use. Then we could bullet or bundle them into two groups. Here is an example of the first two sentences (not yet bulleted/bundled).

Suggestion for first two sentences of Criteria section

The term assault weapon, when used in the context of the federal assault weapons ban, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features. Some sources disagree that the covered features are cosmetic.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lightbreather. It's nice to be proposing & discussing specific changes unlike the stuff that has been occurring above. For better or for worse, I don't see where it changes much. Except that it does lose a main informative point which is that as defined it cosmetically (but not functionally) matches military assault rifles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If I'm following you, North, I'm not suggesting that the two sentences above replace the whole paragraph they're in. The info in the other sentences could still follow, but it really should be edited to be clear and concise. It's clunky and redundant as is:

Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. The mere possession of cosmetic features was enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat this here because it needs to be addressed: The problem with the newly included sentence is that the VPC has said both that the features are not cosmetic (in the quote chosen to support this inclusion), and that they are cosmetic. http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm. This make the inclusion of only one quote without the other a serious problem. Anastrophe (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Since cites from an advocacy group have been used and are considered reliable (The VPC), would this cite also meet the test as a reliable source from the pro-control POV? http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weapons-policy-summary/ "The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" was defined to include 19 named firearms and copies of those firearms, as well as certain semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with at least two specified characteristics from a list of features.8 The two-feature test and the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced." Anastrophe (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe: I read your comment and your question, but it was after I shut down my desktop for the night, so I was reading from my phone. I have a busy weekend planned - and may even get a new desktop! (This one has been crapping-out on me regularly in the past few weeks, even causing problems for me on this page.) Anyway, I hopped on here real quick just to give you this message and let you know I'm thinking about your comment and question, but it may be a day or two before I can reply properly. Later... Lightbreather (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem - it's a general question, anyone is free to chime in with feedback. Anastrophe (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, Anastrophe, I'm back. Hubby is watching football, I have my new computer (nice - except for Windows 8), and I'm ready to discuss.

The VPC's 2003 "Bullet Hoses" quote says, "The distinctive 'look' of assault weapons is not cosmetic." Its 2004 "Statement on Expiration" says that the gun industry side-stepped the AWB by "manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts." Neither quote uses the precise term "cosmetic features." (You and I interpret that differently, I know, but hear me out.) The 2004 statement goes on to say that - actually concludes with - "[Americans] deserve an effective assault weapons ban that truly bans all assault weapons." Since the Compliance section already cites one of the two contradictory VPC sources you've mentioned, and since you've supplied a pro-control source that uses "cosmetic" and "features" in the same sentence, I suggest we replace the VPC citation in the Criteria section with the LCPGV citation you've given (the one that says, "The two-feature test and the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole...").

FWIW: I think the Compliance section could use some work. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a hopefully unintended "baby with the bath water" issue with the changes on the "provision" sentence quite aside form the core "cosmetic" discussion. There is a very informative phrase there regarding similarity to the military assault rifles which also clarifies that (only) the latter is a different term that got take out which I restored. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That has been the problem with these "adit avalanches". They are difficult to fix because there is a modicrum of good mixed in with the other stuff, and it has been a pain to pick it out and preserve it. The whole thing is a mess. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, North. I read the clause you inserted and I A) Moved the citations for "cosmetic features" to before the inserted clause and immediately after "cosmetic features," and B) Clarified the the clause. I also removed the emphasis on and redundant link to assault rifles, which are described in more detail in the preceding Provisions section. Also, and especially since those distinctions are detailed in the preceding section, I think it's unnecessarily wordy for the first part of the sentence in question to read:

The term assault weapon, when used in the context of the federal assault weapons ban, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features....

The following seems simpler, without losing any meaning:

The term assault weapon, when used in the context of the federal assault weapons ban, refers to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features....

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you have still / again removed the key info from the important /relevant place. This (and) similar things elsewhere) is looking like a POV quest. With your avalanche that includes such areas I think you have blown 3RR by a mile. Please STOP. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Any changes I've made are good-faith efforts to improve the article. We've agreed to use BRD cycle. See discussion started below by me after you reverted my good-faith edit. Also, PLEASE STOP assuming bad faith and and accusing of POV. Lightbreather (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You have twice removed the long-standing informative statement that the the banned features are in common with military weapons which are fully automatic, which is a fundamental difference. And seeking to confuse the two / eliminate clarity between them is a common goal of persona working one side on this. IMHO this (in combination with other things) has confirmed to me at least that you are much more savvy and on-a-mission than you are making yourself out to be. But my opinions aside, you have blown 3RR by a mile and even on just this one sentence have made the same controversial and contested edit to and removal of long-standing sourced, germane informative material twice. An immediate self-revert would be a good move at this point. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

ad hoc editing and moderation

Sue, I appreciate the ad hoc moderation you're providing. That said, when an edit literally does not change meaning in any way - no change to NPOV, no removal or addition of info by fiat - I don't think it necessarily requires discussion. I think the intro graf reads better by removing the redundant 'now defunct' (made clear by use of past-tense and mention that it ended in 2004), and 'commonly referred to' states the same thing more compactly than 'almost exclusively referred to'. That said, if there are substantive objections to the changes, discuss away. I feel there are many eyes on the article right now, so if obviously non-neutral/unsourced material suddenly shows up in the article as has happened on the last day or so, I'm sure it will become a matter of discussion in short order. Anastrophe (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe: Also, what happened to the Criteria section edits we worked on and agreed to? Lightbreather (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. If there is a consensus, let it stand. What I am trying to do is bring stability to the article. I check it every 12 hours or so, and for the last few days there have been an avalanche of undiscussed edits, sprinkled in with an edit or two that is reasonable or legit. I try to pick those out when I see them and preserve them, but 90% of these undiscussed edits are strongly POV. As a supporter of the ban, I have no trouble leaving them in if that's the consensus. I've been playing a mental game of devil's advocate, trying to maintain a stable article. :) Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent timing here. Anastrophe, I am going to edit the Provisions section per the discussion you and I had earlier this week. It is a wordy, inconsistent mess. There is important info in it, but it is presented poorly in its current form. Lightbreather (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool beans then, if everyone is happy, then I am happy. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

BRD edits in Efforts to renew section

We've agreed to use the BRD cycle. Doesn't that mean if an editor reverts an edit, he or she will start a discussion on the talk page? (Rather than leaving a personal, not AGF edit summary with the revert.) Helping to improve this article is my #1 goal. Here are the diffs in question. I removed WP:OFFTOPIC, added WP:TOPIC, and made the section less wordy and distracting.Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What a mess! Revert to last stable version?

This article has had 100 edits in about 5 days, most of them in "avalanches" by a couple of individuals. What a mess! The problems are too numerous to deal with. Should we revert to the last stable version? Yes, we'll lose some gnome edits that were blended into the mess, but I don't see any way of recovering it. After that either ask for protection, or quit the avalanches with problematic/controversial ones buried in them, and edit warring to keep them in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that the article is a mess or that edits are too numerous to deal with. We've agreed to use BRD cycle. As Anastrophe said yesterday, numerous eyes are on the article now. Most of my edits have been to remove redundant info, redundant links, or off-topic info, or to simplify language, or add clarity and/or consistency. There were some restores - by myself and others - to agreed upon edits. Now that the Provisions section precedes the Criteria section, the difference between assault weapons (semi-automatic or military) and assault rifles re: how they fire (full-auto, select-fire, and semi-auto) are well explained prior to introducing cosmetic features. Nonetheless, the Criteria section explains them again. (Part of) Provisions section as it reads right now:

The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.

The term assault weapon is also used in military parlance to refer to weapons and weapon systems such as Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons (SMAWs) and Urban Assault Weapons (UAWs). Military weapons and weapon systems were not part of the ban. The similar but technical term assault rifle refers to military rifles capable of selective fire - automatic (full-auto), semi-automatic, and burst fire. Automatic firearms (like machine guns) and assault rifles in automatic mode shoot multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Such firearms are Title II weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. Neither the ban or its expiration changed the legal status of firearms capable of full-auto fire.

Followed by (beginning of) Criteria section, which repeats the same info:

The term assault weapon, when used in the context of the federal assault weapons ban, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features that are similar to those on full-auto and select-fire weapons. Some sources disagree that the features are cosmetic. The possession of these features was enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull. Operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons.

What relevant, factual, average-reader, layman-level information is missing re: the difference between how these firearms fire? Lightbreather (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There was never any broad agreement on moving the provisions ahead of the criteria. It makes little sense to put the provisions ahead of criteria; the criteria are what the provisions are predicated upon. I really have a problem with edits being performed accompanied by a summary that implies there was some sort of agreement to the edit, when there was none ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=574957820 ).

That said, I don't think there is a burning need to revert back to an earlier date. Individual issues can be addressed. I'd like to see the provisions moved back to where they were, as it's the logical flow. If there is redundant info in the provisions section, then the necessary info can be merged into the criteria, or vice-versa as the case may demand for clarity.

This all rather depends on whether we'll have another shitstorm of disruptive editing, rather than productive editing. I have zero disagreement with many of lightbreathers edits; most are simply technical editing to improve the article for clarity, rather than POV pushing. Most, not all.

I would most strongly recommend a slowing down of the pace of all editing. This law ended nearly ten years ago; there is no overwhelming need to 'fix' what few technical problems there are with it, as neither the facts of the law, its perception, nor its effect have changed. Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Also removed was that firearms rights supporters abandoned an unrelated bill that they liked when a renewal of this was attempted by attaching it to it. Also removed is the author of some of the renewal attempts. Selected information is being systematically being removed from the article in the middle of the avalanches. North8000 (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. Revert to the last stable version then protect. The article does not represent consensus, and it is impossible to get there when changes are occurring at at rapid pace. GregJackP Boomer! 11:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the very first Sept 24th version might be a good one to revert to. Before that it looks like the "avalanches" didn't have so much POV work embedded in them. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that one looks good to me. GregJackP Boomer! 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone here that articles in an encyclopedia are to be written neutrally, reflecting the spectrum of what we see in all the sourcing as opposed to being a vote of the dominant personal political opinions of the editors. This article, suffers from a systemic editor bias. A dominant group of long-term "pro-gun" editors here have lorded over this article for a very long time now, and perhaps as no surprise, this article unfortunately reads like it presents a 'pro-gun' viewpoint on the topic. That is against policy here, we should instead be setting aside our personal viewpoints on the politics of "gun rights" and "anti-gun violence" and be trying to write a article with a neutral tone of voice that befits the pride of being involved in the editing of a world class encyclopedia. This transparent petty defending of a group of "pro-gun" editors' political advocacy demeans our encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. Your comment here is dripping with hostility for your peers. Apparently you are the only fair-minded editor on wikipedia; all others are in a conspiracy to pollute it with POV. Stop. You made two grossly POV, unsourced, unsupported edits on friday, by fiat, without discussion, (claiming, based only on your personal opinion since it was not accompanied by discussion or sources, that it was only the pro-gun faction that calls the features cosmetic, contrary to obvious sourcing, and claiming that the Act is "sometimes" referred to as the FAWB, a bald-faced, laughable assertion, again unsourced and undiscussed). Stop trying to disrupt and derail all attempts at discussion and collaboration by pointing fingers and making grossly contra-AGF commentary like the above. You have not engaged in any non-hostile, productive discussion since you stormed in here. Please Stop. I've asked you many questions about your assertions, which you simply ignore. You refuse to collaborate, but instead instantly leap to wikilawyering and throwing accusations. Are you interested in discussing how to improve the article, with specifics? Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask if some here believe they own the article? To revert as suggested even though at least three of us (Anastrophe, SaltyBoatr, and myself) are OK with it as is and agree that many (I'd say most) of my edits are for clarity and wordiness, not POV.

Also, if this article is complete and NPOV, where is the background / introductory material? What are the origins of this law? Who wrote it? Why? Who supported it? What were the legal challenges that are alluded to?

Could a more experienced user tell me: What admin board does one use to report suspected ownership issues? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

On the second issue, the lack of origin/historical information is probably not a POV issue (in this case), but certainly it can be a lack of completeness. If you know of good sourcing, that would be an excellent addition. ANI is probably the best board for complaints of this nature, although AN would also be appropriate. ANI already has a thread discussing this article, due to issues involving SaltyBoatr. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use my comments like that. I said I'm okay with it as is; that doesn't mean I object to a revert. This has nothing to do with 'ownership' - a hollow attempt at lawyering. POV edits have been snaked in with many perfectly fine/valid edits. There have been hundreds of edits in just a couple of days, and it *does* make more work for other editors, unnecessarily. The diversion to the question of background/introductory material is just that - a diversion. That is not a matter in contention, and no background material has been added in the avalanche, so a reversion is not going to take the article backwards. Let's avoid wikilawyering and veiled threats of calling in 'the police'. Lightbreather, you've made many good edits in the last couple of days, but as you yourself state, you've made some POV edits, without discussion, and that's what is the problem here. Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misstate what I wrote, anything I added that was POV was to counterbalance existing POV: in other words, to make the article more NPOV. That, and a lot of just plain good editing that any English teacher or newsroom editor would make. If anyone thinks some one thing I do tips the scale to more pro-ban than anti-ban, revert it and start a discussion - and I'll do the same. That's how BRD works. Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

BRD does not work well when bold edits are intermingled with a hundred general editing edits. It does not work at all, because by the time other readers have had a chance to review them, countless revisions have interceded, making 'revert' difficult. I'm not accusing you of trying to subvert BRD, I just suspect there may be some of that at work (word games are not healthy, per your comment immediately below). You say you were attempting to make the article more NPOV; problem: do we have to go down the same road as before, where you scrubbed cosmetic from the article claiming it was POV, contrary to sourcing, never admitting that it was grossly POV do so, only mildly relenting after a month of tendentious discussion? You demonstrated very early on that you were on a mission of advocacy; Let's play by the BRD rules: save your bold edits and do them separately, outside of edit avalanches, so that your peers can actually engage in the discussion part of the cycle. Otherwise, it has the appearance of attempting to bury them. Anastrophe (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. What I demonstrated early on was that I was a newbie WP editor, and bringing that up now is WP:PERSONAL, as is the practice of some editors here of frequently using "you" when replying to me here and accusing me by name of POV in edit summaries.

I'm not trying to "scrub" the word cosmetic from the article, but present it in a NPOV way to the layman reader. If he/she doesn't know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, and selective fire, or that there are other firearms that are or might be confused with those defined in the ban, it is better to explain those things first, not while simultaneously trying to explain why some sources call some features listed in the ban "cosmetic." Lightbreather (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't keep falling back to the 'newbie' argument to dismiss the original POV push. If the explanations of the differences between the types of firearms is misplaced in the 'provisions' section, that doesn't mean that 'provisions' should be moved ahead of 'criteria', it means that 'criteria' needs refinement, and redundant coverage be removed from the 'provisions' section. Repeat, redundant, not just any info. You claim removal of the word 'cosmetic' was to make the article more NPOV - what is your source-based basis for the contention that minimizing use of the word makes the article more neutral. In detail please, bearing in mind that the overwhelming preponderance of sources have described the features that way. Wait - now we're getting back to the exact same argument that's been going on for two months. It's not appropriate for a single editor to claim their edits are NPOV and remove important info from the article, repeatedly, without consensus, and without a preponderance of sources to back them up. Please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, with an article about an old law suddenly receiving 100 edits in 5 days, many controversial, most in avalanches by two editors (one who is now topic banned) it doesn't take "ownership" (as you are accusing) to explain why folks are discussing potentially reverting it by 5 days. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that many of the recent edits are controversial. Mine have been good-faith efforts to make the article just plain WP:BETTER and more balanced. Also, please don't misstate what I wrote. I haven't accused anyone of WP:OOA, but I suspect there may be some. Finally, I don't think Salty is banned. Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically he isn't topic banned yet, but I wouldn't expect that situation to last long. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am 100% in favor of rolling it back to a stable version, somewhere between Sept 20-24. My efforts to bring stability have not been effective. Two editors have been making avalanches of edits against consensus, and it appears that a rollback is the only solution. I don't recall everyone agreeing to use BRD cycle, and the article as it stands is nowhere near consensus. In fact, if all these changes had taken place a bit more rapidly, it would have tripped vandalism triggers. The article needs to be reverted and protected.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to a rollback, but I don't think the article should be protected, if we can get an agreement from LB to slow down and keep controversial or potentially controversial edits temporally separate and distinct from technical edits, so that the BRD cycle can proceed without being buried in avalanches before other editors have a chance to respond. Anastrophe (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Per consensus here, I have rolled the article back to the September 24th version. GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out exactly when consensus is reached on this page, but I would like to point out - gleaned from this discussion - that supporting a rollback were you (GregJackP), Sue_Rangell, and North8000. I don't see a statement of support or opposition from Gaijin. Maybe I missed it. I thought Anastrophe supported it, but he says that he didn't. (See ANI discussion.) Salty and I were opposed. So that means consensus for rollback was reached by three for, two (or three?) against, and one (or two?) unstated.

Water under the bridge at this point, but I think it should be stated clearly for the record. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Developing background/origins section

I am going to develop a background/origins section to add to the beginning of this article. I will let you know when I have a DRAFT. Lightbreather (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So the article gets trashed in this area by 100 edits in 5 days and now we are supposed to go through that process for each inch of recovery? We need to restore it as discussed above and work from there.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

::"trashed"??? North8000, you have had an apparent vendetta in gun articles since at least 2010. Can you get over that please? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

:::Please stop with the false accusations. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: section dedicated to the issue of 'cosmetic'

The majority of sources on both sides of the debate suggest that the banned features were cosmetic, to one degree or another, in support of their respective positions (pro rights or pro control). This was and remains a significant bone of contention and debate point regarding the expired ban, and proposals for new bans. Recently, most mentions of the word cosmetic were scrubbed from the article. I neither agree nor disagree with that, but I think a separate section detailing the debate about this issue would be appropriate - again, because it has been a major part of the argument for and against it. There is a minority opinion that the features were not cosmetic (and one of the sources in support of that position is contradictory on the matter). Anyway, I think more coverage of the 'cosmetic' argument would be appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So the article gets trashed in this area by 100 edits in 5 days and you are willing to make each inch of recovery subject to discussion/debate? You are beyond a saint! North8000 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not my intent, no. Most of LB's edits were simple technical fixes; I have no objection to the overwhelming majority of them. The removal of most instances of the word cosmetic is problematic, as it appears to be another attempt at a POV scrubbing of this term. The fact that there is such a concerted and eager effort to remove it speaks to a POV push. It is fairly central to the debate over the ban, so it needs expanded coverage, not minimized. Anastrophe (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"POV push"? Stop the accusations. AGF, please. This article needs appropriate POV balance. Politically charged words like the attempt to diminish the way the law defined assault weapons by a listing of features by mis-characterizing those features as mere "cosmetics", this is a POV presentation problem. The sensible thing to do is to treat the matter neutrally, while pointing out the the term "cosmetics" is controversial and favored by one side. We are supposed to be an excellent, neutral encyclopedia. Using neutral wording is policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The term is used in reliable sources by both sides (and most importantly "neutral" 3rd party sites not directly involved in the debate). To say it is used by one side only is WP:OR. Yes, some participants of the "pro-ban" side have claimed the word is inaccurate, but to use their opinion as the neutral truth is ALSO a POV problem. Since VPC is one of those sources, and they specifically said that they promote the term assault weapons to be confusing and to conflate them with machine guns, their opinion on the neutrality/accuracy of terms is highly suspect. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached regarding the term "cosmetic". We don't need to re-argue it every two weeks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that consensus has been reached. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe: As I said recently, but has been perhaps been overlooked, I'm not trying to "scrub" the word cosmetic from the article, but present it in a NPOV way to the layman reader. If he/she doesn't know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, and selective fire, or that there are other firearms that are or might be confused with those defined in the ban, it is better to explain those things first, not while simultaneously trying to explain why some sources call some features listed in the ban "cosmetic." Please stop referring to my newbie WP editor mistakes of two months ago, and PLEASE STOP using the word "scrub." Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree that the preponderance of reliable, verifiable of sources on both sides of the debate suggest that the banned features were cosmetic. And trying to prove a simple majority (regardless of the quality of sources) might start a citation war - which will not improve the article. Does the issue need its own section? I'm not sure. Since we've explained the basic difference between auto and semi-auto firing before introducing the concept of cosmetics, and explained that there are some sources who disagree with the use of the term, the article (re cosmetics anyway) is more balanced and impartial. (Though we should delete the info now presented redundantly after introduction of the term, IMO.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what anyone opposed may think, a consensus HAS been reached regarding this subject. You may look at the discussions HERE, HERE, and most importantly, HERE, in a poll closed by an uninvolved moderator only a couple of weeks ago earlier this very month. There is no need to re-argue this every two weeks. Let's discuss something more productive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to say, there may have been a consensus in the past tense, but presently there is definitely not a state of consensus. Alternately, you may have a non-standard definition of consensus. Shouting me down or dismissing me as irrelevant with repeated blanket reverts (like you did) is not consensus. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus doesn't evaporate because one person shows up to dispute it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

edit to article I just made

I just floated a suggestion to the article, for consideration. Hopefully the other editors here can give is a fair review and read it first prior to simply making a snap revert. I believe it is a constructive edit, and most or all of it will be found to be acceptable. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please revert this edit. It scrubs the word cosmetic, which is in the source material. No neutral rationale has been provided for removing the term.Anastrophe (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's get the revert to September 25th done first and then build from there. The article has been taken too far off in those 100 edits. For example, in that section, the whole comparison / clarification with the often-confused-with military assault rifles has been removed, and warred to keep out to the whole area that you are working on is too badly flawed to start from. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world would you delete all the good progress that has been painstakingly made in the intervening time since then? Do you have any constructive comments on my recent edits in the article space? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is generally my rationale for not finding the revert desireable, it's going to make a lot of work for some people. The problem is, we're already past the point where it's going to be a lot of work for some people regardless. Good edits are (somewhat) more easily redone than questionable edits parsed through and discussed, then fixed, way after the fact. Had the avalanche been inclusive of only technical, non-controversial edits to begin with, rather than having contentious, bold edits salted in amongst lots of technical editing, the whole matter could have been avoided. Anastrophe (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with North's suggested revert. Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you be willing to self-revert the subselection of undiscussed, non-technical edits that you made within the 100 edit spree? That way, the burden of parsing and discussing them is upon the editor who made the edits in the first place. That would be one solution to a wholesale revert. Anastrophe (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Having received no reply, I attempted to fix the problematic parts myself, and do some reorganization based on previous discussion, remove redundant material, and clarify some wording. Anastrophe (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Added Origins of ban section

It's brief, balanced, and sourced. I added it to the beginning of the article, after the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rollback of article to Sept 24

Per consensus above, I rolled the article back to the September 24 version. Before making unilateral changes to the article, the proposed changes need to be discussed on the talk page. GregJackP Boomer! 04:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to restore the lede to what it was before the revert, as there was good cleanup and rewording to make it less clumsy and redundant, with no controversial or POV issues involved, to wit:

"The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms. The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per a sunset provision. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded."

Lemme know. Anastrophe (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to keep the "now defunct" phrase in the lede. I actually thought the law was still in effect until I saw those words. I think it is important to have something like that right at the beginning, because law is always very boring reading, and some people literally do not scan more than the first sentence of the lede. If it were up to me, I'd add those words to EVERY article about a law that is no longer in effect. Anyway, I'd like to see that replaced for that reason, because I personally found it helpful. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection on those reasonable grounds; however, I think it's simpler and clearer to simply start with "The expired XYX". Anastrophe (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

One way or the other it should state that it is expired/defunct. "Defunct" sometimes has some other connotations, maybe "expired" would be better? North8000 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to remove the irrelevant "Note" text at the top of Criteria, since jurisdictional differences have nothing to do with the FAWB:

":Note: There are differing criteria from state to state of what constitutes an Assault weapon. This page refers to the usage in the United States under the previous and proposed assault weapon bans."

Lemme know. Anastrophe (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, per previous consensus, I'd like to remove the 'Assault weapons bans in other states' section, since it too is irrelevant to this article.

say it with me now: "lemme know". Anastrophe (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to any of those changes. GregJackP Boomer! 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Since there is absolutely no urgency to updating this nearly ten year old article about a law that expired nine years ago, I'll wait a while for other editors to voice their thoughts before performing any updates. Anastrophe (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all of Anastrophe's recent changes to the article, and I think they should be restored. A lot of content issues were cleaned up in the edits. ROG5728 (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's make a distinction between (possibly) controversial edits and edits which have a very low zero chance of being controversial. And overall slow this down. Anastrophe has had a very good record of avoiding POV edits and doing excellent work. And I think that all of your proposed edits are such. Anastrophe, I would recommend doing a few of your edits immediately, then a few more tomorrow etc. This article does not need and we don't want more avalanches. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is outrageous! Edit war. (Is there some reason you deleted the (citations needed) tags from yesterday in your haste to preserve your personal points of view?) A huge rollback that reverts this article in favor of the pro-gun personal bias of a small group of editors who have shown ownership of 'pro-gun' articles spanning several years of time. A topic ban for these editors would be a prudent course of action necessary to preserve the unbiased integrity of the encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about in your first sentence. And please quit with the insults and accusations. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm to the point all I hear is blah-blah-blah. Without specifics, it is impossible to address the accusations of bias. GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm stunned at this decision. Am I reading this page wrong? Was the consensus to rollback the article by seven days made after one day of discussion and an unofficial 4 to 2 vote? (Anastrophe, GregJackP, North8000, and Sue Rangell for rollback; me and Salty against.) I have several appointments to keep today, including possibly having a pet euthanized, so I may be back later for further comment, but maybe not until tomorrow. I am almost sure now that this article has owndership issues, and I've mentioned it before, but I'd like to say again for the record that Wikipedia's systemic bias shows quite clearly on this topic.

This is a tad pendantic, but : Reserving for a moment the question of if there is a bias/pov problem in general, certainly there is not systemic bias as described in that link. systemic bias (in the context of wikipedia) is demographic bias. (per your link "The common characteristics of average Wikipedians inevitably color the content of Wikipedia. The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) aged 15–49, (6) from a majority-Christian country, (7) from a developed nation, (8) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (9) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a blue-collar worker.[2]"

The existence of this entire article may be representative of that bias (as there is not similar coverage on other countries laws). But if there is a NPOV problem here, it is unlikely to be due to systemic bias, as the laws are written by, and affecting the same group that is most likely to edit english wikipedia (Americans) . If anything systemic bias would be more likely to swing NPOV too anti-gun (young, highly educated, white collar individuals that wiki attracts are more likely to be pro gun control than the average, and much more than the systemically excluded blue-collar-grandpa hunter.) (under-representation of females would be the one area that I could see affecting systemic bias the other way on this particular topic)Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Gaijin. Don't have enough energy to give you a full reply. In a nutshell, since men are still the majority of (U.S.) lawmakers, gun owners, and Wikipedia editors, I think an article about U.S. gun laws are likely to show a pro-gun or anti-control bias. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You have grossly misrepresented what I have said on the matter, which was most certainly not a 'vote' in favor of rollback, in fact I argued against it. I am sorry you may have to euthanize a pet. Anastrophe (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, to repeat what I said to you in response to the same charge of gross misrepresentation that you made in the ANI discussion about this page:

I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you. At 02:35 30 SEP 2013 (UTC) [on the Federal assault weapons ban talk page] you wrote, "...I don't think there is a burning need to revert back to an earlier date," but at 18:29 (same date) you wrote: "I have no strong objection to a rollback...." It looked to me like you'd changed your mind and agreed to revert. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally, Anastrophe, PLEASE STOP with the use of uncivil rhetoric and excessive "you" statements. I don't like them when they're directed at me or at any other editor. No-one editor here is (or should be) the authority on the article or its editors. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When an editor's behavior is grossly at odds with civil collaboration, it is entirely appropriate to address that behavior with the pronoun "you" (in this regard, saltyboatr). You seem to be suggesting something in your last sentence. To what end, I don't know. You made undiscussed POV-affecting edits interspersed amongst a hundred excellent technical edits. By your silence on the suggestion of self-reverting, I attempted to fix some of the problems, but others chose to rollback. I lost some good edits - oh well, that's how wikipedia works. Anastrophe (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to move on, and at a reasonable pace

Time to move on with editing at a reasonable pace. No avalanches of edits, and there's no rush. . Go to talk first on the ones that are controversial. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Topic ban implemented for six months, nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obviously, we now have a lot of work to do to bring this article into compliance with NPOV policy, it is prudent to put a warning tag on the article in the intervening time period to warn any hapless encyclopedia readers that might wander here unaware of the systemic editor bias problem which is plainly evident. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC) It looks like (it is back to) straightforward informative coverage of the law. Want to give us an example or 2 of the "bias" which you claim? North8000 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Please list specific items that are not NPOV, so they can be discussed and consensus reached, otherwise I intend on removing the tag. GregJackP Boomer! 15:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Please define the word 'consensus' in your personal meaning. Because based on your hostile revert earlier today which you claimed to be "consensus", against actual consensus by the generally accepted defintition of the word, I don't think I understand what you are saying when you use the word "consensus". Please tell me what you mean when you use the word "consensus"? Thanks in advance for your answer. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Unless editor saltyboatr provides concrete examples of bias - backed of course by incontrovertible evidence in the form of a preponderance of sources that suggest the article is at odds with those sources - then the tag needs to be removed, because there is no 'relevant discussion' on the talk page about this alleged bias. One editor is routinely smearing his peers with unfounded, personalized attacks. Editor saltyboatr introduced grossly biased content into the article by fiat and without a single citation to back up that content, and with no discussion explaining how that POV content would 'balance' the article. This disruptive behavior is intolerable at this point.Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC) It is plainly evident that the NPOV is disputed, which is all the tag conveys, an ongoing dispute. By rolling back against consensus, all the disputes in the volume of talk page above is now resurrected too. We have a lot of work going over that detailed work yet again. One big one, (with previous attempt of discussion) is the use of six footnotes (each with extensive quotation from source) to cite that 'cosmetic' sentence. Another giant problem is the fact of systemic editor bias here, (and at other 'gun' articles). Where editors with transparent pro-gun personal bias volunteer in disproportionate numbers to edit at gun related articles and (likely without awareness) create a systemic POV bias which parallels their personal bias. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Overciting is not a POV issue. Either the word is appropriate, or it is not. Overcitation may be an issue, but in this particular case seems required since so many dispute the use of that word. In any case, that is not evidence of NPOV. What is an actual piece of content that you think is not neutrally presented. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Well, I strongly dispute that! And, you evaded the elephant in the room, which is the systemic editor bias which is plainly obvious here. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) You have yet to identify a single piece of actual content which you think is evidence of that bias. Multiple editors have requested you do so. There is the elephant in the room. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Given SaltyBoatr's refusal to ID NPOV items, after being asked numerous times, I removed the tag. GregJackP Boomer! 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) More evasion. You are twisting this to make me the 'elephant in the room'? Once again, this talk page becomes a place for harassment of my character, by a group of transparently 'pro-gun' editors that are attempting to get me banned having the audacity of showing up in an article that they 'own'. See above, there are pages of neutrality issues already discussed that still pertain. If you demand me to restate it in detail, at least have the decency of patience. I am a volunteer editor at Wikipedia, and time constraints from my family and day job means that I need a fair amount to time to work this out with you. Demanding me to instantly restate what has already been said is also a form of harassment. But I am patient, and I will do it. Though, you must give me a reasonable amount of time to do it. Pardon me for a moment, my day job beckons for my attention right now. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) You are not being harassed. Also, I am an anti-gun editor, and I want you topic-banned from this and other gun articles--I'm saying this to make it clear to you that it's your behavior, not your politics, that are so disruptive. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Well, if you must join in on the attack of my character, this article talk page is not the place to do it. Repeated attacks on my character, in quick succession today, made inappropriately in article talk space, is in fact personal harassment. Do you care to express your opinion on the neutrality problem about the article I am attempting to discuss? (And seriously, I now need some time to take care of some other business.) I am a volunteer editor at Wikipedia and this harassment is tiring, which I guess is the intent of the harassers. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Saltyboatr, your behavior here as an editor is reprehensible. You do little more than sling personalized accusations that are grossly contra AGF. A statement such as this: "(Is there some reason you deleted the (citations needed) tags from yesterday in your haste to preserve your personal points of view?) A huge rollback that reverts this article in favor of the pro-gun personal bias of a small group of editors who have shown ownership of 'pro-gun' articles spanning several years of time." (emphasis mine) is an over the top attack on your peers. You came here and began making grossly, overtly POV edits, without sourcing, then accused the other editors of being in a cabal, because your patently biased edits were reverted. You conveniently will not address the two specific edits you made that were absurdely contra NPOV, backed by nothing more than your personal opinion. Your behavior here has been nothing but disruptive. Any attempt at discussion is met with - yet again - the standard refrain above, rather than any attempt to engage with your peers. This is unacceptable. I know not a single one of the other editors here, and I have not communicated with any of them, ever, outside of wikipedia - with the exception of a brief exchange with Sue Rangell about the ad hoc moderation. And that's over a seven year history on wikipedia. Hell of a way to run a cabal. Other editors here also have responsibilities outside of wikipedia. Other editors here actually can edit for NPOV besides you. Most editors here are willing to engage with their peers, rather than storming around flinging accusation at every turn. One editor stands out for his/her unwillingness to do so. Please adjust your behavior to fit within the acceptable norms of peer collaboration on wikipedia.Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

I have to leave soon for one of several appts today. Since I can't figure out how to use the ANI-notice template, so I'm it here for Anastrophe, GregJackP, North8000 and (possibly) Sue Rangell. I definitely suspect ownership issues on this page. Lightbreather (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I not only welcome, I encourage a review by a neutral third-party. I see a campaign of advocacy by a single purpose account. This is a very serious problem. Anastrophe (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article looks pretty straightforward, and informative. I would also welcome a review of it and all aspects including the single purpose account aspect. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll remind you that the only reason I am even here, is because you brought me here, Lightbreather. This is absurd. I too welcome a review. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be glad (well...) to review it. I might be a few days. As an outsider, I see some issues with the first paragraph of "Criteria"; they are prose and definitional problems, and I don't think it's anything that a bit of revising won't fix--unless, of course, the sources disagree, but I don't expect they will disagree by much. If it's OK with you all, I'll read up in the next few days and offer a revised version. (I won't do that on the talk page, but in the article, and y'all can take it or leave it.) For the record, most of you know where I stand on guns and gun control, especially this kind of gun, but I just don't see that this is a bias issue, despite claims to the contrary, since the sourcing (refs 3-9) seems solid enough. Or, if you want a review without the edits, I guess I can do that too, but it seems like doubling the workload. I will say one thing: the word "cosmetic" should be used with a modifier of some sort, but how that is to be done depends on what the sources state. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Today I took out one instance of "cosmetic" where it seemed superfluous. North8000 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I supported the ban largely because of the grenade launcher. I don't see a reason that a civilian gun would need a grenade launcher. Outside of that, the other features all seem pretty cosmetic to me, and i support the overall use of the term "cosmetic", but I would be satisfied if something could be said about the grenade launcher, which guns had them, etc., etc. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your grenade launcher comment, those are illegal for civilian ownership in the U.S. and that has always been the case (regardless of the AWB). Maybe the article doesn't make that very clear though. ROG5728 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The ban does not make grenade launchers illegal. Those are already illegal per Rog. It made guns that had a place to attach a grenade launcher illegal, even though no civilian could actually buy the grenade launcher to attach it. Similarly, threaded barrels were a banned criteria even though the threading itself does nothing. The silencer or flash suppressor you would attach to the threading is covered by other legislation (NFA) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I welcome your peer review (and other editors', too) on this article, but in the form of a talk-page entry, which records an individual's review clearly in one place. You said most of us know where you stand on gun control, but I don't and other editors might not either (current or future editors). Barring a review here on the talk page, a disclosure of your stance would be helpful. The last (maybe the only?) peer review we have archived is from seven years ago. Lightbreather (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, in a word, I am against all guns. I think Gaijin and North and other longtime editors know that. I am not sure there's a term for someone like me in the regular US vocabulary--I'm probably a pacifist in some 19th-century definition. I'm not so much for gun control as I am against the very manufacturing of guns. But, I maintain, that has little to do with my editing on Wikipedia. And I disagree that the talk page is a mandatory place to "record" such a view: I think it is entirely possible to make a neutral edit in the article without recording a POV somewhere, since I believe that neutrality in editing is attainable by someone who has a personal POV. I also think my political opponents are more than capable of doing so, which is why I think that Wikipedia is a more productive place (or can be) than a forum. We're not a forum, remember, and we're also not in freshman comp anymore, or on Crossfire, where participants are picked according to whether they're pro or con. Some of the contributions in this thread which focus on editing rather than on someone's position are a perfect example of how we should do things. I won't discredit your edits based on your opinion (or what I think that is), nor will I discredit North's, or Gaijin's, or Sue Rangell's--whose "position" I don't even know, nor care about. I care about the quality of someone's work, including mine. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean to imply that a record here is mandatory. I was just expressing my preference after trying to understand the development of this article. I'm up-to-speed on some WP stuff, but others not so much. Lightbreather (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed this article linked from ANI, and decided to read it and see if I felt it was biased in any way (as was being suggested on ANI). After reading it, I do think some sections seemed biased and could use a rewrite. In particular, the first paragraph under "Criteria of an assault weapon" seems problematic (which from what is written here, sounds to be one of the main parts in contention). That section of the article seems like it should be presenting only a list of criteria for what was prohibited by the ban, with no discussion in that section of whether the criteria made sense or whether the ban did anything useful. Instead, the first paragarph gives the impression that the criteria didn't really ban anything that was useful to ban. While that may be true, I don't think that is the right placement for that information, and placing it there does give the article the feel of having a pro-gun slant. Conversely, the section titled "compliance" says basically the same thing (that the criteria only amounted to cosmetic features, and only cosmetic changes were required to guns), but that section doesn't feel biased at all. Basically, it just feels wrong to place criticisms of the ban before a description of the ban itself, and that is what the article seems to be doing in its current state. Also, I felt the last three paragraphs under "Expiration and effect on crime" seemed problematic to me. Of those three paragraphs, the first is by John Lott, who based solely on the titles of his books, seems to have a strong opinion against restrictions on guns. The impression I get is that he holds too strong an opinion on the issue for his statements on whether the ban worked to be trusted. I think a section discussing whether the ban worked should focus on studies by neutral individuals, and including research by a non-neutral individual is inappropriate. Similarly, the next two paragraphs (or really a paragraph and a single sentence) include statements by people or oragnizations that are strongly in favor of restrictions on guns. I think these statements are also inappropriate, as basically they are giving opinions when the section should be about facts (and facts from neutral sources). I think those three paragraphs should just be cut out of the article entirely. Calathan (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful suggestions and commentary. I generally agree with much of what you've written. The whole question of 'cosmetics' was and remains one of the most contentious issues associated with the ban. Both pro-gun and pro-control factions have called the features cosmetic, while a minority have argued that they are functional. But it is this debate that really deserves its own section - not necessarily on just 'cosmetic' but on the question of what the practical outcome of the ban was in terms of actual firearm restrictions (and the fact that gun manufacturers 'simply complied with the law'|'made a mockery of the law' by modifying their products to conform to the law. Regarding the use of biased sources, as long as they are given the appropriate weight based upon their prevalence, there's really no alternative - this is a polarizing subject, finding truly neutral third-party sources can prove difficult (although several have been ferreted out thanks to the lengthy discussions). But again, thank you for a very helpful contribution to the discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that my comments could be of some help. I agree that there should be a section of the article that specifically addresses that the topic is controversial and that there is disagreement over whether the ban was useful. That comes through somewhat in the article, but I think directly stating it would be useful. Calathan (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I also think that your comments were/are useful. Rather than agreeing with there being a slant and that they they help that, I see it that they are areas in need of improvement and that your ideas would help there. In general, I think you are saying that in those areas it should have more information and less characterization and opinion. I agree. North8000 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Calathan, thank you! Pro-gun and pro-control advocates have used the word "cosmetic" when referring to (variously): the ban itself, the term "assault weapon," and at least some (if not all) of the listed features of assault weapons. However, there is no preponderence of evidence in the most reliable (neutral) sources indicating a majority of both use the term, use it consistently, or use it for the same reasons. If you look at these DIFFS this revision from before the recent rollback, you will see some sources who object to the term. Lightbreather (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea about the Grenade launchers, that they were only talking about mounts for the grenade launchers. That is exactly the kind of material that should be made clearer in the article! All this time I had thought that the ban A) was still in effect, and B) was stopping people from having grenade launchers. Thanks for the info guys. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of cosmetic features that seem to ban the actual features that people fear but in fact do noting of the sort. Perhaps a section on existing NFA bans that exist now without the AWB would be useful (i.e. the NFA restriction on sound supressors vs. threaded barrels). Also cosmetic adjustments that make the AWB ineffective like thumbhole stocks. Also, militaty changes to 5.56mm for weight and capacity at the expense of lethality. --DHeyward (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This might be a useful quick intro (talk page, not article space) on the "cosmetic". Taking the emblematic AR-15 (the most popular rifle sold in the US) as an example, for the gun itself, it is a weaker and less capable gun than grandpa's deer rifle. The AR-15 uses smaller and less-powerful bullets. Both of them are (only) semi-automatic meaning that (only) another pull of the trigger is required to shoot another bullet. So the AR-15 looks military (and visually looks like the military version) but is a weaker and less capable gun than grandpa's deer rifle, and so they say that only cosmetic features/appearances set it apart from grandpa's deer rifle. People sell (easily made for a wide variety of guns) magazines that can attach to the AR-15 that can hold more bullets than grandpa's deer rifle which is a functional difference but not a part of the gun.

"Assault weapon" has no consistent definition so each week any politician is free to define any firearm as an "assault weapon". The pistol configuration that officer friendlies in my town carry to write my mom a jay-walking ticket were banned by this (subject of this article) "assault weapon" law due to the number of bullets that they can hold. At one time another town that I know of passed an "assault weapon" ban which defined all semi-automatic firearms (maybe 70% of all modern firearms) as "assault weapons" by making people believe that "semi-automatic" was some unusual powerful feature. A different term that actually 'is' defined is "assault rifle" which is what the military uses. An important functional difference is that these are "full auto" capable; they can shoot like a "machine gun". Also the military can posses, attach and use those civilian-illegal attachments like grenade launchers and silencers.

So, persons who want gun ownership reduced or eliminated as much as possible got the AR-15 banned in this law by making people think that it is a more powerful military weapon. And once that is done, they say that the only distinction between the AR-15 and grandpa's deer rifle is "cosmetic" so we need to also ban grandpa's deer rifle. (Or at least define his failure to do new special paperwork and procedures as a "gun crime".) Or that the ban covers only "cosmetic" features and so needs to be expanded. Gun rights advocates say that the only difference from the AR-15 to grandpa's deer rifle is "cosmetic" and so the AR-15 should not be banned. So both sides use the word "cosmetic" to refer to the ban-related features. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, folks. Two quick points. (1) I strongly agree with the idea of adding a Controversy section to this article. The controversy is an important part of the subject, and a section like that would also be a great place to outline the pros and cons of an assault weapons ban as explained by prominent advocates, with proper references of course. (2) As part of the Controversy section it would be good to include the debate about whether or not the features that legally define assault weapons are "cosmetic". According to many, or most, opponents of a ban, they are. According to people who favor a ban, they are not cosmetic, but, on the contrary, make the firearms functionally more dangerous. There are several editors who have participated in this discussion who are apparently convinced that pro-ban groups and individuals generally consider the features to be cosmetic, and think they (the editors that is) have references that prove this, but in fact that's not the case and furthermore just doesn't make sense. Wiktionary defines the term "cosmetic" as "External or superficial; pertaining only to the surface or appearance of something". Proponents of a ban pretty much universally say, not that they are opposed to the superficial appearance of these firearms, but to their supposedly greater lethality. It would therefore make the article more neutral to say that assault weapons are legally defined as firearms possessing certain features, not certain cosmetic features. The latter terminology supports an anti-ban point of view, intentionally or otherwise. Again, a Controversy section in this article would be a great place to cover all this. Please also see my previous posts on this subject, here and here. I apologize in advance if I don't spend a lot more time advocating this second point. I find this subject interesting and worthwhile, but at the moment I don't have a whole lot of time to spend discussing it. P.S. I am saying all of the above as a Wikipedia editor interested in promoting a neutral point of view. Please do not make any assumptions about my personal views on this subject. Thanks, everybody! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I will just note that there are reliable sources showing proponents of the ban referring to features as 'cosmetic' - essentially because they felt hoodwinked in that manufacturers were able to comply with the ban and continue producing basically the same weapons by removing cosmetic features. The VPC has regrettably said on the one hand that the features are cosmetic, but under a different circumstance that they absolutely are not cosmetic, which unfortunately renders them an unreliable source. smartergunlaws.org, a pro-control advocacy group, has specifically stated that the features in the 1994 ban were 'purely cosmetic' - in their arguments in favor of a tougher ban. Thus, the nature of the controversy. Anastrophe (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe is absolutely right. There is nothing about any of the features listed that make the firearm more dangerous or lethal. Folding stocks might look badass, but try firing a rifle with the stock folded, your accuracy will suffer. Even extended if you go on any firearms forum, all you'll read about folding stocks is people bitching about them being uncomfortable or the inability to attain a proper cheek weld. Barrel shrouds so you can grab the barrel and shoot from the hip? Grenade launchers to fire all those milsurp grenades on sale at Home Depot every weekend? Again, when people who write these laws or agree with them get their firearms knowledge from movies and television...this is what comes out. The only difference between a pre and post ban rifle is its appearance. That is why both sides say cosmetic. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have an immense amount of respect for Mudwater's expert, thorough and impartial work (especially on technical and legal aspects) but I think that they have made a couple of errors in their post. BOTH sides of the debate have used the word "cosmetic" with respect to the features, albeit in different ways. And I do not see those in favor of the ban making assertions / having discussions that the individual features make them more powerful. One "exception" to this is magazine size, but the quote marks are because this is about an attachment , not the gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, Mike Searson, North8000, and also other editors -- What do you think about the idea of this article having a separate Controversy section? The section would present the arguments of prominent pro-ban and anti-ban advocates, with appropriate citations. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In general, I do not like sections like that. I think if an article is well-written, then you do not need it. I remember the dark days of the ban...and how the company I worked for was almost put out of business because of it. I remember making a lot of money selling rifles I had built before the ban took affect and I remember living behind enemy lines in a ban state when it sunsetted; I felt like a Jew on Christmas that day. I think a lot of energy is being put into an article about an ill-advised piece of legislation, written by imbeciles, passed surreptitiously, that had no noticeable affect on crime, expired a decade ago and has no legal weight any more.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, as the kids say. You're very articulate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all about smiles and cries, brother.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Lightbreather

I have not made any edits to the article for two days (mostly) because A) I'm still stunned that it was reverted or rolled-back or whatever it's called by a week, and B) I had to euthanize my pet cockatiel, who was my little feathered heart. I feel pretty raw right now, but I want to say a few things.

First, I've decided not to make any changes to the article for a while. I don't have the energy right now for the amount of work it takes me to craft detailed, civil comments to defend my every edit. Also, I want to sit back and see what happens to the article without my direct input. However, I am going to post some sections here on the talk page with suggestions or comments I have about the article, and y'all can take or leave 'em as you wish.

The only specific request I am going to make now, in this section, is to ask Sue Rangell (and others who are saying it) to PLEASE STOP saying that mine is an SPA account. Sue, I did reach out to you early on, hoping to get some help in editing this article for NPOV - not POV. I did NOT know the WP jargon then, so if I said something to you at the time to make you think I'm something other than a single person trying to participate on this page, please contact me privately (I've added an email option to my talk page) so we can straighten out this misunderstanding. This quote (is there such a thing as Wiki-libel?) from you on the ANI discussion especially upsets me:

It is *NOT* a newbie account, as is apparent by it's extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, more extensive than my own, and I have 7 years experience, and advanced privileges. I was unaware of the existence of this article, until the this SPA canvassed me for support, as I was a supporter of the ban, and I am sure that whomever manages the account assumed that I would support them as well. I am certain that this SPA is a political advocacy vehicle of some kind, it's origin, timing, and efforts are very suspicious, and I hope that a neutral party will look into this.

Those are your bolds, and caps, and asterisks, not mine. I never claimed to be a WP newbie past the 3rd or 4th week of my activity here - unless I was referring to activity during that period. If anyone believes that it's impossible to gain extensive knowledge of Wikipedia in less than eight weeks, I am here as living proof that it is possible. (I think eight weeks of trying to stay part of the active community on this topic can do that. I spent many hours every day trying to not only figure out what the more experienced editors were talking about, but also trying to find info that would help me to be a better WP editor and follow WP rules.)

I explained in the ANI discussion why this article received a "sudden interest" (as JethroBT put it), but I'm going to repeat it here for the record. My verbatim explanation from the discussion:

I have been a Wikipedia user for many years. At some point, I set up an account to add links to some Beatles album pages. I also contributed a little to a local politician's page. The first time I edited a firearms related page was Oct. 2012 when I removed the word "cosmetic" from the article in question. At that time, I must've added it to my watchlist (a feature I'd never noticed before). I didn't edit on WP again until August of this year (2013) when I received three MediaWiki emails. The first two, on Aug. 8, said, "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been deleted," and "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been restored." The third, on Aug. 9, said, "The Wikipedia page Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been changed." Since I am interested in gun politics, I followed the link to see what was happening. When I saw that "cosmetic" was back in the article, I removed it again.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Before I call it a day, I am going to respond to some of the comments from the past couple of days.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confused about what SPA means, because it is a term that clearly applies to your editing so far. The only topic you edit is guns, and in fact only this article within that topic. This is the very definition of WP:SPA. If you want that term to not apply to you any longer, go make a significant amount of edits somewhere else. Per [1] you have made a total of 767 edits, 427 of which are to this article or talk page. Another ~200 are to sandbox versions of this page. BTW, WP:SPA is a descriptive term, and not necessarily an insult or attack, although it is a description that is correlated with socking or other editor problems. Per the linked page "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy." If you are well-intentioned, then you have no reason to dislike the SPA label. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"If you are well-intentioned, then you have no reason to dislike the SPA label." What? That sounds to me like saying to someone who's a good citizen and asking people to stop calling him a criminal - to say to that person, "If you are a good citizen, then you have no reason to dislike being labelled a criminal." Please stop referring to my account as an SPA, or hinting that it is. Most of my hundreds of edits were neutral edits were for MOS or to make it just plain WP:BETTER. And there is nothing that I would like better for this article to get to a NPOV state and be able to go work on some other things - inside and outside WP. Lightbreather (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually read what SPA means? SINGLE PURPOSE ACCOUNT. It has nothing to do with the quality of your edits. It means that your edits are all about one topic. and they are. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Restore Origins of the ban section

I wrote and added the following brief, balanced, and sourced introductory material to the article immediately after the lead, with the section header/title Origins of the ban. (Scroll down in the "What a mess!" talk-page discussion to the "What are the origins of this law?" question, and others, and Gaijin's reply.) The section appears to have been deleted during the rollback, which was done three hours after the section was added.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - also called the "crime bill."

Efforts to create a federal assault weapons ban began in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.

In May 1994, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

One early advocate for the ban was the Violence Policy Center, whose executive director, Josh Sugarmann, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. However, after it was enacted, but before it expired, the VPC opposed renewing the ban, saying that it did not focus on what made the banned weapons so deadly.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been a steady opponent of the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that semi-automatic weapons were used in only 1 percent of crimes, but 2 million times a year by citizens for self defense.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 October 2013‎ (UTC)

You are still doing sparring in this post. If you have proposed changes in contentious areas, you should clearly propose them as such, in pieces small enough for people to deal with and enough time for them do do so. No rushes, no avalanches, no huge bundles, and none of the "I'm reasonable and you're not" assertion battling as knitted into your post above. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. Please see my statement above. Others editors are welcome to do as they wish with this proposed addition. I think it would improve the article, that's all. Also, North, please stop with the "you" statements. Lightbreather (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think the section is a good addition, although I think it would have been better tho post a draft in talk rather than directly into the article for such a big change. Your timing on the addition was (inadvertently?) bad. The revert was being discussed and it was caught in the timing, but surly you had to anticipate that possibility. In any case, it is a simple matter to discuss, edit and readd now. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)The sparring comment is accurate. You took a situation that was quite forseeable, and reasonable, and used it as another opportunity to claim umbrage. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Stop Sparring. Another avalanche of edits, all bundled together like a congressional bill. There's some things in there that I like, other things I do not. Please break it into single issues, pick one, and then suggest again. You are asking me to eat an entire sandwich even though I don't like all of the ingredients. This has been expressed to you in the past. ONE ISSUE AT A TIME PLEASE. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Defer (if you're voting on the addition of this section). If I edit one thing at a time, or bring up one issue at a time, these individual actions get counted and thrown in my face. If I develop one full idea (in this case, a brief, sourced, NPOV introductory section) - I get asked to present the edits/issues one at a time. The net effect is to discourage participation. I have stated above that I will not edit the article at this time. Stop yelling at me, please. Lightbreather (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as explicitly needing a vote. I'm in favor of restoring this section, but to the version after I did some minor NPOV editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&direction=next&oldid=575230574 I believe it could also stand to have the first graf elided as it is redundant. It's well-written, stating the basic history leading up to the ban, though it's hard to determine emphatically that the Stockton shooting was the proximate beginning of that history. Anastrophe (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Anastrophe, but if you'll note, I edited the section above based on the edit you'd made before it was rolled back. The first included said this:

One early advocate for the ban was the Violence Policy Center, whose executive director, Josh Sugarmann, called gun violence a public-health issue. However, after it was enacted, but before it expired, the VPC opposed renewing the ban, saying that it did not focus on what made the banned weapons so deadly.

Which you deleted, saying in your edit summary, "interesting, but not related to the AWB; off topic."

So I added it back but edited in the proposed "new" section. The source makes several references to banning assault weapons. If the article is going to use Lott and Kopel as sources, including VPC founder Josh Sugarmann adds balance and improves NPOV. That source also helps when the talk turns to cosmetics, because it helps explain the reason that the VPC later changed its stance on the AWB (based on its inclusion of less deadly features). To reiterate the change I made to the section shown above:

One early advocate for the ban was the Violence Policy Center, whose executive director, Josh Sugarmann, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. However, after it was enacted, but before it expired, the VPC opposed renewing the ban, saying that it did not focus on what made the banned weapons so deadly.

I added the italics above for emphasis, and do not suggest they (italics) go into the article - only that the early VPC/Sugarmann source should. The references section of the article is heavy with pro-gun sources, and very light on pro-control sources. Lightbreather (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems: You mention that Sen. Feinstein said that bill was a weakened version. Why cover only one side's impressions of it? You are aware that if it was weakened, it was only with Sen. Feinstein's consent, as she was the author of the bill. It's not neutral to only include her 'complaint'. The final bill was a product of negotiation. Secondly with regard to Sugarmann, advocacy groups say many things before legislation is in place. Did VPC's comments play any substantive role in the origins of the ban? No. Unless you plan on including statements made by the other side of the debate to balance the considerable coverage you're giving the VPC, it's not NPOV - and I assure you, there's plenty that was said by the other side before the ban became law. You also left in 'steady opponent' wrt the NRA - it's true, but it's clumsy wording and unnecessary. The NRA opposed the ban, full stop - unless you want to go into more detailed coverage of the NRA's rationale for opposing the ban, to provide balance? Anastrophe (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's because Senator Feinstein was the author of the bill that a single statement of her opinion about its progress through the Senate is relevant - and it's sourced. The section does not include only her complaint. It also says that Rep. Brooks and the NRA opposed the ban and it gives sources. (I found very little from the NRA concurrent with the origins of the ban.)

As for Josh Sugarmann and the VPC, as I said yesterday: I do not plan on editing the article for a while. If other editors add this section, or a modified version, it's up to them to decide what to include. But when a nationally recognized participant on either side of a contentious debate changes its stance - that's noteworthy.

Finally, until very recently editors of this article cited a VPC press release as a source supporting use of the word "cosmetic." When helping a reader to understand the ban, putting these things in context is important. Editors Calathan and Mudwater have suggested adding a "Controversies" section. Sounds great to me, as long as it's relatively brief and, more important, balanced. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"But when a nationally recognized participant on either side of a contentious debate changes its stance - that's noteworthy." It is. but it's irrelevant to origins of the ban. I'm not sure why this is not understood. If we're to include Feinstein's impressions that it was weakened, I'd certainly entertain expanding it to include her infamous comments on '60 Minutes' where she discusses what she really wanted the ban to include - confiscation. That's relevant to the origins of the ban, and is relevant to why the bill wound up being weakened. I've already weighed in with my support for a 'controversies' section, particularly since I was first to propose it. Anastrophe (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, your proposal was for a Cosmetics section, not a Controversies section. Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Must everything be lawyered? I was proposing a section discussing the debate regarding these matters. FFS. Anastrophe (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the article needs a controversies section. All laws generate controversy, this law was no different. As a law banning guns, any controversy will be generated by the pro-gun side of things, and making a list of complaints about the law will inevitably tip this article from relative neutrality to pro-gun POV in my opinion. I think such a section is a bad idea for this reason. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)