Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 4

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

→

challenges section

Before we get ahead of ourselves and possibly waste time, do we even have a consensus to include a section on challenges? I personally am not convinced that this is a good idea right now. To be honest, I am not even convinced that this section is necessary or important to the article at all. Also, the proposed section, in its present form, needs to be completely reworked, and I have concerns that this new process will bog us all down in endless debate when we could and should be working on other things. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Before we jump into this with both feet, I think that this is something that we can do in smaller pieces, or do later on, if at all. The majority of similar articles on Wikipedia have no such section, so there is certainly no burning need, if any need at all, for this article to have one. There are many issues with this section that would need to be addressed and clearly it will be a big job if we even decide to do this at this time. I am of the opinion that this should be tabled, at least for now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Sue. GregJackP Boomer! 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This is an article about a widely debated law. A section on legal challenges is not only relevant, not to have such a section leaves the article incomplete and brings its neutrality and credibility into question. Lightbreather (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather Please Stop

Some, but not all, of your our latest edits broke links and changed the wording of several sections in a POV way. Please stop. Among other things your changes MYC Mayor Bloomberg's quote into something the man did not say, and then broke the link. Verify Here:http://features.rr.com/article/072E6jnf98gU6?q=Barack+Obama Why did you do that? It took me forever to fix the errors that were sprinkled in with the good edits. I don't know if I got everything, someone else should double check my work. Lightbreather, please discuss changes before you make them, they are creating extra work for everybody. Regards. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell Please Stop.

Please, when posting, be specific and give diffs - not general statements like "Some, but not all."

I flagged two links as dead, and replaced a dead Washington Post link with a working Washington Post link. The rr.com link you gave above links to a headline and a snippet from a Minneapolis Star Tribune article - and its link to the full article is dead. Mayor Bloomberg's quote? Do you mean the headline in the dead link that began "NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Obama’s top priority should be..."? What exactly did I break?

As for POV, I merged and simplified these two wordy sentences:

"Shortly after the November 4, 2008 election, Change.gov, the website of the office of then President-Elect Barack Obama, listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. The stated positions included 'making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.'"

Into this one sentence (with no loss of meaning):

"After the November 2008 election, the website of President-elect Barack Obama listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration that included 'making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.'" (same source)

I also merged and simplified these two wordy sentences:

"This statement was originally published on Barack Obama's campaign website, BarackObama.com.~~[29]~~ The agenda statement later appeared on the administration's website, WhiteHouse.gov, with its wording intact."

Into this one sentence (with no loss of meaning):

"This statement was originally published on Obama's campaign website and later appeared on the White House website with its wording intact." (same sources)

Those edits made a clunky paragraph clear and concise, per WP:MOS. What do you think was POV? Please be specific. Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are easily found under the history tab. About Bloomberg: If you read the context, you will see that Bloomberg's comments were cited because in that particular speech he mentioned Diane Feinstein. Your edit reflects commentry in a completely different setting. It is unknown if he mentioned Diane Feinstein or not. You changed the citation from one of relevance to one that may not be relevant at all. He says a similar comment about Obama, but it has nothing to do with the reason for the citation. About merging sentences: Your merges lost a considerable amount of information, including links, websites, and a citation. There is no need to explain any further. I implore you again, PLEASE do not make further edits without discussing them on the talk page. Regards. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And why did you wipe the contents of this talk page? You erased several ongoing discussions. I fixed that too. Please don't do any more reverts until a consensus can be reached. You are killing me here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to delete the previous discussions. I apologize. I had to reset my computer in the middle of composing my last response. After restarting, I must've made a mistake when I finished and posted. I am reposting now.

It is courteous and expediant to give DIFFS and details when one disputes another editor's edits. About Bloomberg: Since you will not give details, I will. The sentence in question (original) reads:

"Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a federal assault weapons ban bill in the U.S. Senate^[1] following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting."^[2]

It is the beginning of a paragraph that doesn't even mention Bloomberg - except in the header/title (not quote) of the dead link. The first citation supports the first part of the sentence, that Feinstein introduced a new bill. The second citation was placed at the end of the sentence, after mentioning the Sandy Hook shooting. Again, it was not a quote; it was a reference to a Washington Post story of Dec. 16 (two days after the shooting) in which Bloomberg responds to the shooting. The title/header of the story in the dead link is a paraphrasing of Bloomberg's comments. The link I replaced it with is from the same newspaper, the same day - the same story. The sentence in question after replacing the link reads:

"Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a federal assault weapons ban bill in the U.S. Senate^[1] following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting."^[3]

About merging sentences: No info was lost, and the same two citations used in the original, wordy sentences were the same two used in the clear, concise sentences. I implore you to assume good faith, and if an edit I make doesn't seem right to you, please ask me about it before reverting it and saying something irreversible about the edit or about me in an edit summary. ~~Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)~~

^ ^a ^b "Lawmakers Renew Call To Restore Federal Assault Weapons Ban Following Newtown School Massacre". CBS News. 16 December 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2012.
^ "NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Obama's top priority should be gun control, starting with enforcing laws". The Washington Post. 16 December 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2012.
^ Sean Sullivan (December 16, 2012). "Bloomberg: Gun control should be Obama's 'number one agenda'". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2012.

Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize again for accidentally deleting the other discussions above this one. I would not do that on purpose. I am tired and hungry, and I'm calling it a day. Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please stop. A number of editors have tried to discuss this with you, but you don't seem to hear what any of them are saying. This is an area where there are strong feelings about gun rights / gun control. Additions need consensus to be added to the article, which does not appear to be occurring. The next step will be to open a discussion at ANI on your conduct. I don't think anyone here wants to to that. I would recommend that you check out WP:MENTOR - a lot of times having an experienced mentor can help one become more productive at Wikipedia. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What is "this." Please be specific. Do you want me to not edit the page, or to discuss every edit before I make it, or what? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"This" is the style of highly motivated, dedicated editing that you are doing, oft-times biased (although I suspect not consciously so). I see a great deal of similarity to how I edited when I first came to the project. I found myself in the Climate Change area, an area that is known for polarized viewpoints and WP:POV editing. You are nowhere near the point that I was, but I can still see the similarities in how you go about it.

I ended up at ArbCom, and to make a long story short, was topic banned from climate change and global warming articles, and shortly thereafter received an indef block. After about 18 months, I made a request to come back, which was approved under editing restrictions. Still later, I was able to get those restrictions lifted. The editing that I was trying to do initially didn't matter in the long run - by taking actions that ensured that I would be blocked (albeit not intentionally), I lost all ability to affect the articles in question. I still don't go to those articles, years later, even though I could.

Here, you display some of the same behavior, although much less severe. I'm not always very good at being tactful, so this may be kind of blunt, but it is not meant to insult or belittle you, it is just what I see. First, you have difficulty seeing and hearing consensus on the talk page. An example is the extended discussion on primary vs. secondary sources. Another example is the extended discussion at the top of this talk page. Once consensus is reached, you need to learn to drop the stick. It's hard, I had a problem in doing that too.

Look, I think you can be a good editor, even a very good editor. I just think you need to slow down and learn more about the process and the politics of WP first. Get a WP:MENTOR. Watchlist ANI and AN to see what goes on behind the scenes. Find a quiet, non-controversial area of the project to edit in, where you can build your skills while avoiding conflict. That doesn't mean you should leave this area alone, just that you should go slow here. I think that it may be a good idea to discuss proposed edits on the talk page first. It's not required, but I think it would be helpful.

Again, I'm basing a lot of this on my experiences. I was banned and blocked, but successfully came back, with a couple of featured articles, a Four Award and other bling since my return. I'm one of only five editors to earn a Valiant Return Triple Crown. I did it by finding a quiet spot of the project and writing quality articles. I hope that you can do the same. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

GregJack, what an immense evolution you have gone through! Starting from where you described to where you ended up from an editing standpoint. Also to giving such carefully thought out and expert, with the extra perspective of "been there", and the willingness to talk about it objectively and directly. Lightbreather, I was going to try to answer your question, and what GregJack just said envelopes what I was going to say, it is excellent advice. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

First, GregJackP I appreciate your taking time to share your story, and I appreciate your concern. Thank you. I also respect that you're an experienced Wikipedia editor with deserved recognition. I am seeking a mentor. I have volunteered on the peer review general copyediting page, I've joined the law project, and I'm watching other pages. I don't think I'm more motivated, dedicated, or biased in my editing than any other editor here. What I am is pretty new to WP editing. I made a few newbie mistakes in early August, and I've been under a spotlight ever since.

Second, there are many things I do poorly, but I am a good writer and editor. In my work as a computer programmer/analyst I wrote reports for journeymen and senior executives. After many years I went back to school and received a degree in journalism. I served as president of a nonprofit. Both jobs required me to be professional in every communication. Writing and editing are my strengths.

So, to reiterate, I am looking for other areas to improve my WP-specific editing skills, but I don't plan to leave this article. I am trying to help NPOV it per WP:5P. I would like some positive feedback, not just negative. When there is a question about an edit I've made, I'd like specifics and to be treated civilly.

Third, I've read the WP policy on consensus. Its says: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity ... nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." My observation has been that on this article, consensus is often (at least since early August) the result of a vote - even a close vote that is closed quickly mid-discussion, or a vote with only three participants. When there isn't a vote, there is little to no effort to incorporate legitimate concerns. Instead, there are accusations of tendentious editing, when it might be argued that there are some authority or ownership issues here, with the goal to allow no changes at all unless they support the article's biases as-is.

So, what do I have permission to do on the page? May I even bring up my concerns? May I edit spelling and grammar errors? May I standardize the format of the source citations? Give me a task! Lightbreather (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I don't know if you are meaning to do it, but when someone implies caricature / strawman and somewhat disparaging versions of the feedback just given them (e.g. "permission" and "May I edit spelling and grammar errors?") it makes the person sound like they are sparring rather than sincerely seeking a route forward. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I think that reformatting the citations would be a great place to start. Are you familiar with the citation templates? I don't really have time to really go into it now, but will be happy to discuss it at more length later today. GregJackP Boomer! 20:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have used a few and studied some others, but I notice that there is a lot of inconsistency in how they're used in this article. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Most articles use the "Citation1" style templates, which is a cross between The Chicago Manual of Style and the APA Style. You can find a list of the templates at WP:CS1. Please note that there is no one "house style" and editors are free to use Chicago, APA, MLA Style, Bluebook, etc. Generally we go with whatever the first editor used, unless there is a compelling reason for changing. I do a lot of editing of legal articles, so I tend to favor the Bluebook style, but will use whatever is appropriate. It would really help if you could clean up the citations here, and I don't think that anyone will complain. Let me know if you are interested or have any questions. GregJackP Boomer! 00:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GregJackP. I will use the templates you've suggested, referring to my copy of Chicago as I go. Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"I am trying to help NPOV it per WP:5P." and "[...]with the goal to allow no changes at all unless they support the article's biases as-is." Claiming that the article is biased, while steadfastly evading actually identifying what biases you believe are at play, forces your peers to guess at what those biases might be - which leaves us with no foundation upon which to collaborate. Thus far, when asked for specifics, your account dives immediately into discussion of policy - chapter and verse - with zero elucidation of the actual 'what' and 'why'. That is not collaboration, it is wikilawyering. The behavior of your account - taken as a whole since it resumed activity in early August - suggests advocacy. Your narrative above is interesting but meaningless, sorry. We have no way of verifying it, and fundamentally it is not appropriate anyway. Who an editor is outside of WP is properly left out of the discussion (see my user page if you need further elucidation). We are judged as editors by the quality of our edits, and our behavior in discussion with our peers, period, full stop. Thus far, your behavior has not been exemplary. You tend to cover your ears, and protest that we aren't assuming good faith, while being evasive about the specifics of what you are trying to fix. That's fine - but the respect of your peers will be earned, like it or not - the real world is at play here even in this virtual medium. You made very serious mistakes early on; your peers, or at least, this peer, is exceedingly wary, and it will take some real history of demonstrated good faith editing and collaboration to allay the enhanced scrutiny, at least from this editor.

"I don't plan to leave this article" - followed by "Instead, there are accusations of tendentious editing, when it might be argued that there are some authority or ownership issues here" leaves me unmoved. Engage with us as peers, rather than roadblocks to an agenda, and perhaps eventually the current wariness might dissipate. Editing more than one or two articles in a very narrow and polarizing realm, out of the four million articles here, might help too. The choice, of course, is yours. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence of article "The now defunct..."

I removed the words "now defunct" from the lead sentence of the article, giving as an edit summary "misplaced emphasis; redundant (defunct) and imprecise (now) ; section tense and specific dates give info." Another editor restored "now defunct" saying, "Replaced fact removed in NPOV manner." Here is a link to the diffs.

Considering that the lead uses the past tense "was," "included," "passed," "expired" and so on, and includes the date the ban was enacted, how long it was in effect, and when it expired, is it the consensus of editors currently active on this page that "now defunct" is even necessary, let alone important enough to put it in a place of great emphasis before the first use of the article title in the lead?

Related policies/guidelines: WP:LEAD, WP:RELTIME.

Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note (especially Sue R.), this change has been agreed to through the BRD process. See these diffs from change by Anastrophe. Lightbreather (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing citations with Citation Style 1 and The Chicago Manual of Style

With the blessing and guidance of respected colleague GregJackP, I'm working on article citations using WP:CS1 and the CMOS. I will place notes here as I edit citations or when I have questions. Please, if I make a mistake, or if you have questions, comment here so I can fix it or answer your questions. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in press release style and gave it a unique refname so it could be easily cited elsewhere in the article. (It had the generic refname "ref1," which was called nowhere else in the article.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in press release style and gave it a unique refname, too. (It didn't have one.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This citation (diffs) in journal style. Added refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This citation (diffs) now in cite book style. Added refname. Corrected source page number. This sentence needs editing. It improperly includes "due to the fact that" in quoted material. Also, the reviewing body was a committee, not a panel. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Question- In THIS one, the page number, publisher, and ISBN number are different, is it an updated version or something? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

She cited to both the original print copy (2005) and to the electronic copy (2013). I wouldn't have done it, but that's only because I'm lazier. It looks to me to be a better cite to the same source. I'm actually impressed. I'm not very good at the WikiOtter stuff myself, probably because I'm always watching my back for the evil WikiKnights (and don't believe the spin on the Knights - it's all propaganda twisted to suit their evil, nefarious purposes).

Knights are tasty tho, if you can get past the hard shell... GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GJP. The old citation gave the wrong page number for the source (96 instead of 97). It also gave the ISBN for the paper copy of the book (which one must buy), but the URL to the e-book, which has a different ISBN. The page of that e-book also has a place to download the PDF version. (Both the e-book and PDF are free.) Also, you've introduced me to new WP terms; I'd much rather swim free and crack tasty morsels on a tummy-rock than wear all that heavy armor and be serious all the time. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent then! Very Helpful! I'm a Wikiwitch myself, if it hasn't shown, lol. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL, no Sue, it had not shown. LB, the other problem with the Knights armor is it makes them too heavy to get to any decent altitude where you can drop them from, so you have to pick them off one at a time on the ground. Of course most of the b*st*rds travel in packs. :( GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. (It had a broken URL, so I fixed that. Same website.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Heads up. Removing citation added back to wrong place on Sept. 17 revert. ~~See~~Compare last sentence of original paragraph that begins "Shortly after..." ~~here,~~ with same paragraph and sentence after revert ~~here~~.... And then after removing the duplicate: the same citations - in number and placement - as the original. (I swear by my tummy-rock this is true, not a trick.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) and this citation (diffs) in cite web style and gave them each a unique refname, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in cite news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname. Lightbreather (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname, too. Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally, for today, I put this citation (diffs) in news style and gave it a unique refname. (I did make a mistake on this one, which I caught myself and corrected, but that means I'm tired so I'm calling it a day... after I go back and triple-check each one again one-by-one.)

There are some that are more complex that I'll probably ask questions about, but I want to study other WP articles and my CMOS first. Lightbreather (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in fixing/updating these citations. Anastrophe (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is my pleasure. Lightbreather (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put Lott citations (three) in book style. The diffs are here, here, and here.

FWIW: Even though the first three sentences refer to different editions of the same book, the old citations both pointed to the same source - which isn't even the book, but an interview that accompanied the book's release. I found the separate editions of the book on Google Books and cited those - but they're not eBooks and whomever cited them didn't give page numbers, so it's hard to verify what the article says about them. Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (Oops. Sorry. Forgot to sign.)

This paragraph, IMO, needs editing and references to the first book maybe don't even belong in this article, as it's primarily about right-to-carry laws. Also, having Wikilinks in the paragraph to Lott's books in addition to the source citations (which also, of course, link to the books), is redundant and distracting. Again, just an FWIW. Lightbreather (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I put this citation (diffs) in journal style. The same citation was duplicated in the next sentence, so I invoked it by refname. The only difference was the first did not use accessdate, but the second one did. From what I've read on the parameter, we're probably using it more than necessary - but if y'all want me to put it back, I will. (Though if there's a way to do it without cluttering the text with all the duplicate code, I'd love to know how.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

About to call it a day, but I actually DO have a comment about that last citation. It is for "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence" by Koper & Roth, et al (published 2004 by Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania). The citation gave original publication year as 1997, but the 1997 document was "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" by Roth & Koper et al. (published by The Urban Institute, Wahsington, D.C.) Different titles with different principals published seven years apart by different institutions. They're separate articles, aren't they? Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are two separate articles. On the other matters above, you've done a great job! On the area you note as changes, if you could just let us know what you think the change should be, then I'm sure that there would be no problem with it. Also, the diffs, while nice, are probably not necessary - just letting us know the citation you fixed allows us to check it, and I have not seen any that were messed up. Like I said, great job. On another issue, I am about to move an article from a user subpage to article space, and if you are interested in proof-reading, checking grammar, etc., I would love to have you double-check my work. The citation style is Bluebook, which I know you may not be familiar with, so I wouldn't impose on you for checking those. Just let me know if you are interested. GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GJP. You will see a number of minor edits related to the notices above about the individual edits. I'm actually going to include links to the diffs rather than the citations because as citations are added, deleted, and merged, their numbers change, but the diffs are always good. This will help future editors who might want to check the changes, too. Also, I have looking at your article on my near-future to-do list. FYI. Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sentence that needs editing

OK, GregJackP the first area that showed up as needing editing while I was standardizing the source citations is the second sentence of the first paragraph in the Expiration section, which reads (pre-edit):

"A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban 'did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence' and noted 'due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small....'"

I will be back when edits are finished to explain. Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

One clunky sentence now two clearer sentences:

"A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban 'did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.' The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small."

In first sentence, I replaced: "research of firearms" with "firearms research"; "panel" with "committee" (ref page R1 of source); and "academic studies" with "an academic study." I also added missing "outcomes" to end of quoted material. In the new second sentence, I removed the misquoted "due to the fact that," and paraphrased the awkwardly tied together fragments from two different sentences (ref page 97 of source). Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks good to me, reads a whole lot better. GregJackP Boomer! 01:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GregJackP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to swap Criteria and Provisions sections

I would like to propose swapping the Criteria and Provisions sections of the article. The Provisions section should be expanded to give a basic description of the ban and introduce confusing terms. Then, the Criteria section can focus on details of the ban - as it presently does - without trying to introduce basic info at the same time - which it also tries to do (thereby making both the basic and the complex harder to understand). I think this will greatly enhance readability for the average reader.

A proposed, expanded Provisions section will follow this post. Lightbreather (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: I did not use the word flowchart in my proposed Provisions section, because that term doesn't really apply to the ban. I didn't use the word "Act" because it would be easier for the readers if we are consistent throughout the article in our use of the short term for the subject. Simply "ban" or "AWB" is easily connected in the reader's mind with the longer "assault weapons ban" or "federal assault weapons ban," and these terms are used frequently in news stories on second and subsequent references to the ban. Also, the reference to the legal challenges can be moved to later in the article if some object to its inclusion here... It just happens to be in this section in the current version. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Expanded) Provisions of the ban

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.

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

The term assault weapon is also commonly used to refer to some military weapons and weapon systems. 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 ~~fully~~ automatic firearms.

The ban restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban also defined the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device," which is often shortened to "large capacity magazine," or "high capacity magazine." These were defined by the assault weapons ban as magazines, belts, drums, feed strips, or similar devices with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It restricted the transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices except for: those made before the law's enactment; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

Depending on locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a standard capacity and high capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds.^{[citation needed]} The exclusion of pre-ban firearms and feeding devices created higher prices in the market for such items.^{[citation needed]}

Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by reviewing courts.^[1]^[2]

I think that it is a step into confusion/misleading rather than an improvement. Particularly in confusing military weapons with the types affected by the ban. Also in using "assault weapon" as if it were a type of firearm independent of this law. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the common complaints by gun enthusiasts and experts is that laymen and non-experts use these terms interchangeably, and it's true. It's one of the most contentious aspects of the ban. That should be explained up-front to the reader so that when he or she reads the rest of the article he/she can put it in context. The Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary definitions confirm that - like it or not, inexpert or not - these terms are used interchangeably.

Merriam-Webster assault weapon and assault rifle. Wiktionary assault weapon and assault rifle

--Lightbreather (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Assault rifle" has a well accepted definition. "Assault weapon" has none, leaving it open to being whatever a law-proposer wants it to be. When talking about a particular meaning under this law, it should be made clear / have context that it is such and not imply otherwise. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that assault rifle is a well-accepted technical term, and it is used correctly by experts and probably by most enthusiasts (though I'll bet there are times when even they get sloppy, depending on the context and audience). I also agree that "assault weapon" has no one, well-accepted definition. But our job as editors is to present the topic as clearly as we can from a NPOV to the average reader. That reader has probably encountered the term before, unclear of its nuances, is beginning to read about it again, and will continue to read about it for years to come. We should explain that briefly and include a Wikilink to the "assault weapon" article if they want to dig deeper. We could even move the note that's at the beginning of the Criteria section to the beginning of this section. Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What the article should make clear is that the common parlance exists, and that it is inaccurate/incorrect; catering to a broad misconception is NPOV. Since the legal definitions vs the linguistic definitions are critical to an understanding of what, exactly, was banned, we need to provide clear and accurate information about it, even if it is explained in greater detail in other articles. Thus why I would reject striking "fully" from 'automatic firearm', since semi-automatic firearms are sometimes referred to simply as 'automatic'. It is critical the reader of this article on the ban be fully informed of the accurate meanings of the words use. Anastrophe (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please leave it as it is. The article should be educational, not a vehicle to further confuse things. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(Updated) Provisions of the ban

Note: ~~There are differing criteria from state to state of what constitutes an assault weapon.~~Some cities and states have what are commonly referred to as assault weapons bans. This page refers to the ~~usage in the United States under~~ the expired federal assault weapon bans of the United States.

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.

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 commonly used to refer to some military weapons and weapon systems like Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons (SMAWs) and Urban Assault Weapons (UAWs). 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 ~~automatic~~ firearms capable of full-auto fire.

The ban restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban also defined the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device," which is often shortened to "large capacity magazine," or "high capacity magazine." These were defined by the assault weapons ban as magazines, belts, drums, feed strips, or similar devices with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It restricted the transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices except for: those made before the law's enactment; and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

Depending on locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a standard capacity and high capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds.^{[citation needed]} The exclusion of pre-ban firearms and feeding devices created higher prices in the market for such items.^{[citation needed]}

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that better, North8000? I put the "Note" at the top and added qualifiers like common and technical. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The link to disambiguation isn't appropriate; disambig pages are not canonical for definitions, whether common, accurate, or inaccurate. It doesn't substitute for clear explanation. Anastrophe (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought North might like it, but I can go either way. Lightbreather (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Still has the same problem and IMHO still more confusing and biased than the current version which is very straightforward. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current wording. I see no reason to change it. If it works, don't fix it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Note: There are differing criteria of what constitutes an assault weapon, depending upon jurisdiction.". Full stop. Noting that the criteria are malleable is adequate, since there is no single overriding definition that would otherwise obtain. Since this article is about an assault weapon ban, it is patent that the criteria that will be described are pursuant to this assault weapon ban, and this article.

Simplify. Anastrophe (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"~~Depending on locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a standard capacity and high capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds.~~" This article is about the FAWB. Localities are off topic. Anastrophe (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"The term 'assault weapon' is 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 this ban." I frankly don't know of anyone who 'commonly' refers to SMAWs in conversation; implying broader use of the term isn't accurate. Anastrophe (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"~~The exclusion of pre-ban firearms and feeding devices created higher prices in the market for such items.~~". Since there's no cite, it shouldn't be included in a rewrite. Anastrophe (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

State law section is off topic here

This article is discussing the Federal law of 1994, so I removed the section discussing state laws because they plainly are off topic here. This article is for the information about the 1994 law officially named the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act". SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, but I wouldn't be adverse to working in a link to Gun politics in the United States somehow, so that people can get to that information from this page. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to renew the ban

The final paragraph of this section is about a new bill introduced by Senator Feinstein, with different criteria, not an attempt to renew the former ban. It should probably be struck, as it's not directly relevant to this article. si or no? Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

~~Remove it. The bill is not even law at this time.~~ WAIT, is it in fact a different bill? The last sentence reads like it was an attempt to renew the original FAWB, if that is the case, I think it should stay. (and the whole thing re-written so that it is clearer) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think the "Efforts to enact similar laws" section, including the part about the 2012 – 2013 effort by Sen. Feinstein and others, should stay in the article. Yes, those proposed laws are not the same law that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, but they are quite similar. That's all very closely related to the main subject of the article, and quite significant from a legal or political perspective. Removing that paragraph or that section would therefore make the article worse, not better. — Mudwater^(Talk) 17:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the article is misnamed?

Regarding North8000 recent revert of my good faith edit, with no discussion on the talk page. It seems pretty obvious that an article about a federal law should reflect the official wording in the law. The word 'ban' is charged politically, and violates neutrality policy here. The word officially used in the law is as a matter of course the more neutral term to use. Another way to deal with this bias problem, which also applies to the name of this article, it to rename the article. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Salty, I left the vast majority of your edit in place and only reverted to re-add "ban". North8000 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The federal assault weapon ban is and was widely, commonly, and accurately referred to as a ban; that's why people call it that (yes, tautology). What exactly is POV about the word ban? Specifically? Simply stating that it is 'politically charged' is meaningless; both sides of the debate refer to it as a ban, so it is used neutrally. Anastrophe (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines and policies about article naming. When a subject is widely and prominently known by a particular name, the article should be named after its most common usage. Nobody refers to it by its formal name. The formal name should link to this article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I too oppose renaming the article, for the reasons that Anastrophe has stated: that's what the law is usually called, and calling it that definitely does not violate neutrality guidelines. For your reading convenience, here are the article naming guidelines: WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME. — Mudwater^(Talk) 17:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Federal assault weapons ban is acceptable IMO, as long as it's not capitalized. Since no preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources capitalize “federal assault weapons ban” in running text, to capitalize it here is neither WP:TITLE standard or WP:NCCAPS convention. In fact, not one of the article's three dozen cited sources uses the term capitalized in running text. Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically I agree with lightbreather on this, the article suffers from topic creep. The topic of the article is about the 1994 federal law, and the use of all caps seems to imply that the topic is some greater POV political issue, which it is not. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Or, if we assume good faith, it could just be completely benign and non-POV, since it is sometimes presented capped in running text, and is normally presented capped in titles. The two policies at play here are not that widely employed or known. Anastrophe (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Anastrophe, that if the policy was not widely known, this article title might have been moved/renamed with caps in good faith – a simple newbie or even veteran mistake. But we can only guess. What we know is that the WP:TITLECASE primary principle says to use lowercase except for proper names. For Wikipedia to continue to present this article’s title in caps is for WP to say that the term is a proper noun despite a preponderance of authoritative, reliable sources who say otherwise. Lightbreather (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss any edits that may be objected to

To Everyone: Please, in the interest of preventing edit wars. Please discuss any edits before you make them unless you are are absolutely sure that there will be NO OBJECTION whatsoever. If your edit was reverted or if somebody complained, that means you did it wrong. Hot-button topics like this need to be a collaborative process. It is best not to make any edits that "correct POV", "make the article neutral", etc., If you find yourself making an edit on such reasoning, you should bring it to this talk page and let a discussion happen. Otherwise the inevitable revert will only serve to frustrate you. I just undid a few such edits, leaving one or two that seemed to be supported by consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that we allow the WP:BRD cycle to work on this page. This will allow discussions to naturally start up where needed (as was the case yesterday). Lightbreather (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

While I am sure Sue Rangell was acting in good faith, an unintentional effect of her large sweeping edits in a backwards direction amounted to an unintended salvo in an edit war. It would be much more constructive to work on small progressions of edits, doing some back and forth, mixed with good faith discussion on the talk page. We can work this out by collaboratively editing and talking as we go. Making giant reverts like Sue Rangell did is counter productive. Lightbreather is onto something here I think, the BRD cycle is a tried and true method of how Wikipedia works. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am acting in good faith. Edit wars happen when editors pop into a controversial topic and begin making large numbers of tendentious undiscussed edits. Please read the top of this talk page. I am a neutral party in this, in fact I supported the ban, but "large sweeping controversial edits" (from either side) will result in large sweeping corrections. My goal is to keep the page stable and informative, using the methods that have worked so far. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but is hard to accept your good faith assurances when you once again made a massive 'revert' edit like [1]. Especially sad is the fact that you chose to actually revert errors back into the article. You reverted errors back into the article. Wow. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Salty, when you make an avalanche of undiscussed POV-altering changes on on article like this, things are going to get messy, including details with reverts of parts of the avalanche. You should slow down and discuss. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How can you construe my edit, which was conservatively structured to follow the verbatim text of the law as "POV"? How can you construe my merely correcting flat out errors as "POV"? Is that AGF? Just curious. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are misstating what I said twice over. First, I said POV shifting, not POV. I have not spent the time to evaluate the resultant chaos with respect to the latter. Second I did not make any claim covering every piece of the avalanche, and so claiming that I said so about some putative neutral change buried within it is incorrect. The same advice applies....slow down, no avalanches, and talk about the items that you know will be controversial. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"structured to follow the verbatim text of the law" - this is a wikipedia article. It exists to describe and explain the law, not to reproduce the law. This appears to have been a summary of the law that someone wrote. A citation of the reliable secondary source that constructed that summary would be required before it could be added back in the first place. But it seems to be a wall of text inserted to push the descriptions and explanations 'below the fold', rather than encyclopedic content. Anastrophe (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Salty. Being new to WP editing, I made some mistakes in my first couple of weeks here, but I think I've learned enough now to participate in a WP-approved, BRD fashion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I think it very unfortunate to de-emphasis the formal name of the law which is the subject of this topic. It makes lots of sense and is plainly logical to give the 'first billing' to the formal name of the law which the article is about. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the opening should be with the formal name, immediately thereafter noting the broad, common, widely and virtually exclusively used colloquial name of the act. On the other hand, suggesting that it is "sometimes" referred to as the federal assault weapon ban is patently unsupportable. It is virtually exclusively referred to as the federal assualt weapon ban, or just the assault weapon ban, by everyone. Without going to the page or looking it up, I challenge any reader to state the formal name of the subsection. Dare ya. Even after looking at it two dozen times in the last few days, I couldn't tell you exactly what the wording is. We use the commonly used name of the topic, that's policy, and we don't suggest that it is 'sometimes' referred to as that. It is commonly referred to as that. Easy. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please revert your change of "commonly" to "also". This is supported by the sources, patently - just review them at the bottom of the article. Thousands and thousands of reliable sources refer to it as the federal assault weapons ban. It is broadly known as that, you refer to it as that, I refer to it as that, people who have never visited wikipedia refer to it as that, Dianne Feinstein, author of the bill, refers to it as that. If you like, I can provide sources for that which is patently obvious, no problem, it just seems tendentious that you are making an issue of it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLUE may be helpful. Please restore my edit. This change is pure WP:Disruption. Anastrophe (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, while I agree that "commonly" is the right adverb to use here - and I've changed it - your request and accompanying comments seem hypercritical. Salty hasn't been here two days. Let's assume good faith. Lightbreather (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a very long history of interaction and discussion not immediately evident to a new user. The fact that my change was reverted after my very clear description of why the patently obvious need not be supressed is evidenciary to me of disruptive behavior. Disruptive editing is contrary to good faith. Anastrophe (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

This [[2]] edit, made without any talk page discussion amounts to disruptive edit warring. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Those who have participated in discussion here have come to a broad consensus on the matter already. A single revert of a non-neutral change by a previously uninvolved editor is not edit-warring. Calling a single reversion that's supported by lengthy previous discussion 'edit warring' is contra AGF, and amounts to wikilawyering. This is not appreciated by those who have already put the hard work into consensus building here. Please stop being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. Anastrophe (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please abide by what you were claiming to support yesterday - the BRD cycle. You were bold, and made a change. It was reverted. Discuss. Your change was unsourced, and undiscussed. Please provide your sources that suggest that it is only opponents of the law who describe them as cosmetic. Since there are none, and since the preponderance of sources show that both proponents and opponents refer to them as cosmetic, your edit appears to have been intended only to be disruptive, since you seem to now reject the BRD cycle when it suits you. Please stop being disruptive. Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, can you prove that a preponderence of proponents and opponents of AWB 1994 believed the ban's listed features were all or mostly cosmetic? Rather than add more citations to an already overlong list on the article page, which would not improve the article, let's discuss those here. I will start a new section on this topic. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The proponderance of reliable sources representing opinions from pro, anti, and neutral parties, have described the features as cosmetic, to varying degrees. I 'get' from the discussions that those who were in favor of the ban take great umbrage at the term cosmetic. But there are countless sources that don't even have a dog in this fight who describe them as cosmetic. The finer points of exactly what qualifiers prepend the term 'cosmetic'only burdens the plain english understanding with varying degrees of non-neutrality and undue weight. The features have been described as cosmetic. We can note that some disagree with the use of that term(Edit 19:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC):IF someone can find reliable sources that state that - editor's having a dislike for the term do not count). But giving more weight to the occasionally used 'largely' or 'slightly' qualifiers is not tenable. Anastrophe (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Unless explicitly stated, editors' choices (inside or outside Wikipedia) to use or not to use the term "cosmetic" cannot be construed as like or dislike, support or opposition. Also, some here were approaching consensus on the use of "largely cosmetic" last month, but adding a brief, balancing statement about the word in general makes that qualification less important now. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually SaltyBoatr, if you want to be technical, the insertion of the material could be considered to be disruptive, since it has been previously discussed and the consensus was the current language. No one said that it was disruptive because everyone was assuming good faith on your part, presuming that you merely failed to check the archive prior discussions before inserting the material. In any event, there is not a problem, since Anastrophe reverted for the discussion phase, we can now inform you of the established consensus. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Salty on this one. The recent discussion was about whether or not the word cosmetic belongs in the criteria section. The consensus at the time was that it does - but no consensus was reached about where it belongs within the section, or how often it is used, or even how it's qualified.

Salty wrote, “Opponents of the law have commonly used the term 'cosmetic' to describe these features.” That is true. He did not suggest that it “only” opponents of law describe them as cosmetic. Also, there is no preponderance of sources show that opponents and proponents refer to them as cosmetic. (Also, could whomever wrote the previous comment please sign it? Thanks.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Since opponents, proponents, and neutral third party sources have described the changes as 'cosmetic', the edit suggests that common use confers only on one side. The original wording is neutral, as it does not place greater emphasis on one side or the other. To play the word game, it would be just as "accurate" but misleading and POV to reword it as "A small number of proponents describe the features as 'cosmetic'". It's true, but it colors it with POV. Proponents, Opponents, and neutral third-party sources have described the features as 'largely cosmetic', 'apparently cosmetic', 'seemingly cosmetic' and 'cosmetic' full stop. Qualifying who describes it that way is POV - the exact opposite of the edit summary that accompanied that change. Anastrophe (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What I was trying to point out to a new editor in this article is that this has been discussed as far as the term cosmetic. IIRC, the same argument was made at that time, but the community did not agree. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Relative newbiew Q: What is "IIRC"? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it stands for If I recall correctly. :) Anastrophe (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

One key point in the discussion was that "cosmetic" has been used by persons and sources on both sides of the debate. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The one cited source on the pro-control side of the AWB 1994 debate is the Violence Policy Center – but it opposed the ban. It said in a Sept. 2004 press release, “Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing ‘post-ban’ assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts.”

Note first that it says “slight, cosmetic differences,” which, despite other editors’ contentions to the contrary, is not the same as “cosmetic features.” But at any rate, that VPC press release ends with this sentence: America's police and public deserve an effective assault weapons ban that truly bans all assault weapons. (Their bolding, not mine.)

A good thing for our article that came out of that discussion in early August is that editors added six sources for the term “cosmetic” - a bit of overkill – but all from eight or nine years after ~~its~~ the ban's expiration.

What wasn’t good for the article is that the discussion was ended without thorough WP:NPOV editing for the use of the word “cosmetic.” Careful reading of the history of the article and the talk page for August and September shows some evidence of WP:OOA. Let's remember what consensus is not and keep on working BRD - civilly. Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the contention that the VPC opposed the ban? They may have argued post-ban that they did not like it, but IIRC they wholeheartedly supported the ban when it was proposed and when it was signed into law. Anastrophe (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article is controversial and content is in dispute. Don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information. Failure to do this is the only thing that creates an edit war. Many hours of hard work have gone into consensus building, one cannot expect to simply add an avalanche of problematic edits without resistance. Again, please use this talk page, that is why this talk page exists. Ignoring discussion and consensus is an act of bad faith. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable sources (preferably reliable, authoritative) re: "cosmetic"

Let's get the verifiable, - preferably reliable and authoritative - sources out there and discuss. (Let's not flood the article page; that's not WP best practice.) This isn't about whether or not to include the term, but how best to include it for NPOV.

First, I'll cite the ones from the article. Give me a minute. Lightbreather (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Alex Seitz-Wald (February 6, 2013). "Don’t mourn the assault weapons ban’s impending demise". Salon.
Jacob Sullum (January 30, 2013). "What's an Assault Weapon?". Reason.
Megan McArdle (November 12, 2012). "Just Say No to Dumb Gun Laws". The Daily Beast.
Jordy Yager (January 16, 2013). "The problem with 'assault weapons'". The Hill.
Michael A. Memoli (March 19, 2013). "Assault weapons ban to be dropped from Senate gun bill". Los Angeles Times.
David Kopel (December 17, 2012). "Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown". Wall Street Journal.
"Finally, the End of a Sad Era--Clinton Gun Ban Stricken from Books!". Fairfax, Virginia: National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. September 13, 2004.
"Violence Policy Center Issues Statement on Expiration of Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (Press release). Washington, D.C.: Violence Policy Center. September 13, 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate source for many of the quotes used in those articles, a 2004 study funded by the DOJ from GMU & UPenn : http://gemini.gmu.edu/cebcp/CRIM490/Koper2004.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Another salvo in an edit war

This [3] edit by Sue Rangell is a third massive revert in only one POV direction. Regardless of lip service to the contrary, this has all the appearances of biased 'mediator' serving the purpose of defending one POV at the expense of another.

It is especially telling that this 'help' in this article only takes the form of reverts, and flowery generic calls for reason, in just one direction. If mediation is the true intent here, may I suggest that the volunteer mediator try following actual [WP:M] procedures and stop taking sides? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You claim it is POV in only one direction. State specifically what POV is being served, per edit, and why it is 'at the expense' of another. Generic, vague claims of POV are not acceptable; it's wikilawyering. Be specific with your claims, otherwise they can only be given the merit or lack of same they deserve. Also, your dismissal of the reverts as 'flowery generic calls for reason, in just one direction', is highly offensive and contra AGF.

You've made large, sweeping changes to the article and highly POV edits (suggesting that only one side of the debate refers to the features as cosmetic, while suggesting that it is neutral for you to claim so, ignoring all sources!!!), ignoring all previous discussion, and staying silent on calls for discussion except to badger with warnings that other editors - not you - are edit warring and being disruptive. Stop. You are the sole source of disruption in this brief interval. You refuse to engage in discussion of your edits - again, only taking the time to argue that that other's behavior is at issue here. Stop personalizing, start engaging, stop disrupting.Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the 'cosmetic' sentence really need six footnotes?

And all from 'pro-gun leaning sources? This is blatant POV bias. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Defend your claim. Explain, via reliable sources, how all of these sources are "pro-gun leaning sources". These generic arguments that things are all biased is not acceptable. If you like, you may review the previous discussion, and the dozens of other sources offered that support the use of the term cosmetic. After you've done your reading, and provided some evidence that the extant sources are biased - based on something other than your personal opinion - then we'll have something to discuss. Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Because Salon, and the LATimes (along with otherwise reliable WSJ, as well) are totally "pro-gun". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is proof that constructive conversation on this talk page is difficult to the point of being hopeless. Seriously, the Salon article is quoting the National Rifle Association, and the LA Time article is quoting a conservative GOP Senator. The WSJ is 'reliable', but we are discussing neutrality, and the WSJ is quoting David Kopel one of the most famous pro-gun advocates for God's sake. A fair conversation could admit that there is genuine bias seen those six footnotes. And these responses from Gaijin42 have the appearance of bad faith debate diversion tactic. (And never mind that we 'forgot' to discuss why this sentence needs six footnotes.) Please show good faith when discussing this. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Salty makes some good points. The sources cited are pro-gun, or maybe more accurately anti-ban (regardless of who published them). Anastrophe suggested review of the previous discussion(s), but he forgot to give a link. The most recent discussions are in archive 2. The first couple of discussions cite opinions - maybe even some facts - but no sources. The RfC shows consensus on keeping the word "cosmetic" in the Criteria section, but if you read through the discussion you'll mostly see newbie mistakes on my part and newbie-biting on the part of some other editors. In between there is some topical discussion - but no consensus about anything other than the fact that "cosmetic" should stay. Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Whoever is cited is unimportant--Salon etc. can be considered plenty reliable. Let's not get carried away in that US high school kind of way where everything is "biased" and everyone's opinion is worthwhile. In other words, to get back to the question, six is a lot, but the claim that they're all from "pro-gun sources" or whatever is preposterous: at least three of the six are ordinarily considered "liberal". Drmies (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And you "forgot" to read the prior discussion. Does discussion only begin when you show up? No. Please show good faith and read the previous discussion before charging that your peers aren't engaging in discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Tell me where there was discussion of a need for six footnotes to one sentence? (Did you forget to comment on my question?) SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

actually the salon article says "This is a rare case where the NRA is right" and "University of Pennsylvania criminologist Chris Koper and his colleagues wrote in their official review of the 1994 assault weapons ban." further, if reliable sources 3rd party sources choose primary sources you disagree with, tough luck. That's the sources they use. Find other reliable sources quoting someone else. The 6 sources is because less was insufficient to quell prior objection. If there is no objection to the cosmetic term, with only one source, then by all means, we can combine or remove some of the additional citiations. But I think you DO NOT agree with the cosmetic term, and therefore are not actually arguing that we should reduce the citations. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to link directly to it, but the very recent discussion about this matter can be found in Archive 2, section 4, closed Rfc. Anastrophe (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just looked, that was not a discussion of why there needs to be six footnotes. (Nor a discussion of weighting, seriously fifteen uses of the word 'cosmetic' in this article?!?) I too would vote that we need to mention the 'cosmetic' issue, but the weighting is FAR out of balance. That is a huge NPOV bias problem in the article. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the extensive discussion engaged in by your peers before you showed up is noted. As another editor has pointed out, the word is used only six times in the article; I would recommend avoiding raw word counts to make a point. A word count is not evidence of bias, period. Are you ready to discuss the article? Anastrophe (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I find your sarcastic question to be extremely offensive. Further, I am astonished that measuring undue weight quantitatively by counting biased words is not "evidence". That assertion appears to be harassing and a stonewall. I consider your use of the talk page in that way to be highly disruptive. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you infer sarcasm i my closing question. In fact, while I can be sarcastic at times, I did not write that with sarcasm in mind. I would like to discuss the article, rather than this back and forth of personalized accusations about editors themselves, which has ended up as a day full of polluted bickering rather than effort to improve the article. If we can confine ourselves to actually discussing the content and leaving all this other personalized crap at the door, we might get somewhere productive. Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

Notice that the content and sourcing to a "Violence Policy Center" portion of the article has been hidden[4], with the apparent intent of suppressing the non-pro-gun point of view. Evidence of a NPOV balance problem here. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated creation of sections making wild accusations is disruptive and a massive failure of WP:AGF. We can work on issues, but only if you are actually working with us, and not enjoying your righteous indignation. Please stop. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Complete refusal to engage with your peers, instead blasting one-way claims, without actually supporting them (you do realize that the supressed material pretty clearly is damning of the anti-gun POV, not supportive, as it describes underhanded propaganda techniques employed by same. Entirely inappropriate to a balanced article, but hey, if you want the uglier side of the anti-gun methods to be prominent in the article, we can discuss it). Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Both of you just attacked my character. Do as I say, or, do as I do?

(Never mind that you failed to even bother comment on the hiding of the VPC content in the article, which I attempted to 'talk about' on the talk page.) Sue Rangell if you are listening, help is now needed please to mediate this talk page towards actual discussion of the article. I tried, but was met with ad hominem. Further evidence here of a POV 'ownership' stonewall, with long term pro-gun editors defending a gun related article. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We didn't attack your character at all. We are pointing out totally unacceptable behavior by an editor - making countless contra-AGF claims about your peers, contra-neutrality edits without any supportive citations to reliable sources (simply making changes by fiat), arguing that we must prove that The sky is blue, and generally stomping on all actual discussion here. Please stop the disruptive behavior. If you want to discuss changes to the article, begin doing so, rather than using this talk page as a platform for your personal opinions. Anastrophe (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help but notice that you yet again fail to address the substantive question at hand, the hiding the VPC content in the article. It is feeling that attempts at constructive conversations about the article are futile in this hostile environment. Sue Rangell, are you listening? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I directly addressed the hiding of the VPC content; you appear to have missed it. Would you please retract this personalized attack after you read what I wrote? Thanks. This relentless meta-discussion is the problem - I discussed it, you didn't WP:HEAR it. Please discuss the article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Please be so kind as to point to precisely where you 'addressed' the VPC content. Alluding that you did, while failing to be helpful in the finding, feels to me like passive aggression on your part. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no "allusion", my words are just a few inches up the screen. Please stop personalizing and attacking your peers. Are you ready to discuss the article? Anastrophe (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I have made a post at ANI regarding SaltyBoar's creation of 5 sections, repeated failure at WP:AGF and WP:NPA Gaijin42 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What's up with this fixation on the word cosmetic?

The word appears fifteen times in the article! Maybe that is a little bit on the "undue weight" side of a POV push? Get real. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is not a platform for your personal opinions. "Get real" is not helpful or meaningful to discussion. The fact that some of the features banned in the FAWB were cosmetic is why it was perfectly legal to remove cosmetic features and therefore make the guns compliant with the law; the same fact is why pro-control folks came to withdraw support for it, because it was considered ineffective and easily bypassed. Both sides have referred to the features as cosmetic, in support of their position. It was a major matter of contention about the bill, and remains so. It is unsurprising therefore that the word would appear repeatedly. Taking use of the word out of context and just doing a word count to make a point isn't helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastrophe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Salty, so we have a 10 year old article with 126 editors, and it ended up with 15 instances of the word "cosmetic" and so that is your basis for an accusation that there is a "POV push". Who are you accusing of a "POV push"? North8000 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, more attacks on my character. The mere fact that there are 15 occurrences of the word "cosmetic" in this article, a word favored by an extreme pro-gun point of view held by David Kopel. His extremist point of view deserves to be carried in the article, but not with such undue weight. This seems like plain evidence of a bias problem in this article, but no one here cares to discuss it. Instead this group of well known long term pro-gun editors chose to attack my character and harass me while avoiding my repeated attempts at constructive conversation about the article. (Sue Rangell, are you seeing this?) This has all the appearances of single purpose tag team of pro-gun editors showing long term ownership here. Sorry to have to mention that, but evidence of that fact is plainly apparent. How do you explain the repeated attacks on my character coupled with failure to engage my comments about the article? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That Kopel likes the word does not in any way condemn it. We should describe the ban with appropriate weight based on reliable sources. If reliable sources use the word cosmetic more often than not (which they do) then we should as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, guys! I thought of a possible editorial compromise. Will y'all let me make a suggestion SaltyBoatr, Anastrophe, and North8000? Please say yes! Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? (You just did). Make your suggestion. No promises on accepting it or not though. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the newly included sentence is that the VPC has said both that the features are not cosmetic, and that they are. http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm . This make the inclusion of only one quote without the other problematic, to say the least. Anastrophe (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Anastrophe. Just saw your comment. Please see my explanation and suggestion compromise section below. Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion, let's tone down the mentions of the word 'cosmetic' to two or three usages instead of fifteen? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What's your basis? Why is a word count meaningful, particularly when both pro-gun and pro-control organizations have said the features were cosmetic in support of their respective positions? Anastrophe (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, Gaijin42. I'm taking a 30-minute break to eat my lunch and see if the others agree to at least consider my suggestion before I bother writing it up. Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It is actually used only 6 times in the article. I think Salty was adding in uses in the references. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Only six times. (laugh) One time would be sufficient. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thus, the folly of using word counts to make a point. Anastrophe (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I hold that weighting does include excessive use of footnotes, especially when those footnotes include extensive quoting from the source material. Made worse, when that quoting is imbalanced giving favor to one POV over another, as we see in this instance. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is much too biased towards the gun-control side. We need to balance it out by putting in more information from the gun rights side. GregJackP Boomer! 21:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, provides even more evidence that this article suffers from ownership by a brigade of long term 'pro-gun' editors. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Salty, quit the accusation crap. Some people try to use that as a way to try further their objectives.....please don't be one of them. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "the" is used 216 times. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, North8000 entertains a campaign to get me banned from Wikipedia for being "disruptive", then uses the word "crap" to describe my sincere concerns about systemic editor bias. Followed with hollow sarcasm about the word "the". Coupled with essentially zero reciprocity of my genuine questions and concerns about the content in the article. ( And, I get the brunt of the accusation of causing the disruption here.) This rather clearly seems like a campaign to harass me by creating a hostile environment with the apparent intent to discourage me from editing here in this article. That, is the true disruption going on here. Please stop your attempts to force me out by trying to intimidate me away from editing in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

^ Vivian S. Chu, Legislative Attorney (February 14, 2013). "Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved August 14, 2013.
^ Navegar Inc v U.S. (D.C. Cir. 1999) ("We hold that section 110102 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is within Congress' Commerce Clause power and does not constitute an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder."), Text.,Navegar Inc v U.S. (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("... ORDERED by the Court that appellants' petition is denied."), Text.

[lawmakers_renew_16_dec_2012-1] "Lawmakers Renew Call To Restore Federal Assault Weapons Ban Following Newtown School Massacre". CBS News. 16 December 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2012.

[2] "NYC Mayor Bloomberg: Obama's top priority should be gun control, starting with enforcing laws". The Washington Post. 16 December 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2012.

[3] Sean Sullivan (December 16, 2012). "Bloomberg: Gun control should be Obama's 'number one agenda'". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2012.

[crs-r42957_14_feb_2013-4] Vivian S. Chu, Legislative Attorney (February 14, 2013). "Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved August 14, 2013.

[5] Navegar Inc v U.S. (D.C. Cir. 1999) ("We hold that section 110102 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is within Congress' Commerce Clause power and does not constitute an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder."), Text.,Navegar Inc v U.S. (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("... ORDERED by the Court that appellants' petition is denied."), Text.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]