| Revision as of 16:26, 20 January 2015 edit162.119.231.132 (talk) →Neutral lead: too much spin← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:21, 6 January 2025 edit undoSpringee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,488 edits →The term isn't specific to the United States: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (798 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
| ⚫ |
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=gc|style=long}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Firearms |class=B |needs-image=no |importance=High |
|
{{WikiProject Firearms|class=B |needs-image=no |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=High}} |
|
|B-Class-1=yes<!-- Proper referencing and citation throughout the article. --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
|B-Class-2=yes<!-- Adequate and correct coverage of the article topic --> |
|
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|B-Class-3=yes<!-- Proper structure as per the Manual of Style and project guidelines. --> |
|
|
⚫ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gc|style=long}} |
|
|B-Class-4=yes<!-- Proper grammar and spelling --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5=yes<!-- Adequate supporting materials such as external links and See also items. -->}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law|class=start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|counter = 8 |
| ⚫ |
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
| ⚫ |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Assault weapon/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Assault weapon/Archive %(counter)d |
|
⚫ |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
⚫ |
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index=/Archive index }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Citations needed == |
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody looking for sources for the multiple "Citation needed" tags in this article? I looked for some when I put them there... I think I put most of them there, and many, many weeks ago. Going once, going twice... |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm tired of these articles having these unsourced statements in them. ] (]) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think that there is only one in there at the moment (I know that a lot just happened, so maybe my comment is off the target of your question) ) and it is on the first phrase in a sentence. IMO it is "sky is blue" preface/setup for the main statement / second half of the sentence which is explicitly sourced, and I'm guessing that the sources given for the sentence probably also cover the preface. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::There were three, in the lead. Miguel has provided sources for two, which I am currently reading. He deleted the other, which I restored, pending discussion here. ] (]) 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The majority of all so-called AW legislation lists rifles as a majority of the firerarms affected. Are you that slow that you cannot see that? Does that really need a citation? Do you assume people are that stupid that they can not see a list of 70 rifles, a dozen pistols and 8 shotguns and not arrive at the same conclusion?--] - ] 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Mike, dammit. I'm not one of "the guys" and I don't appreciate the insults. Please keep it on content and not on your opinion of my intellect. ] (]) 21:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pump/semi-auto shotgun info not for this article - but where? == |
|
|
|
|
|
This statement was in the lead of this (Assault weapon) article. |
|
|
:Some gun control advocates have attempted to place pump-action shotguns in this category.<ref>{{cite news |last=Richardson |first=Valerie |date=March 3, 2013 |title=Pump shotgun on banned list doesn’t sit well with Colorado hunters |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/3/pump-shotgun-on-banned-list-doesnt-sit-well-with-c/ |newspaper=Washington Times |location= |publisher=Washington Times |accessdate=March 13, 2014 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist|close}} |
|
|
|
|
|
After reading the sources, and some related sources - including these , , and others - it is clear that it's mis-stated and belongs somewhere else... But where? |
|
|
|
|
|
These pump/semi-auto shotguns were/are not defined as assault weapons. They were considered in a bill before the Colorado legislature last year because they can be altered to hold more than eight shells. This falls under high-capacity magazine (or large capacity feeding device) bans, not the "term" assault weapon. (There's a whole, other discussion, about WP:REFERS.) ] (]) 21:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:There are many instances of actually defining those (and similar) explicitly as assault weapons. Also, there are many more instances of putting such bans under the "sales title" of assault weapon weapon bans where it was not given as explicitly as a definition. And this includes the sentence that you are referring to. So perhaps the wording should be expanded to include something on the order of "banned in legislation described as "assault weapon" legislation. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::"There are many instances of actually defining those (and similar) explicitly as assault weapons." All I'm asking for is citations, please. ] (]) 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Look up Nevada SB396 from 2013 proposed by Segerblom. He tried to have pump shotguns classified as assault weapons.--] - ] 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That is just less than of the applicable things covered by the sentence. The res is is firearm banned under the banner of "assault weapon" legislation even without being explicitly defined as such. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I won't dicker with you about this guys. I don't think it belongs in this article, about the "term" assault weapon... and certainly not in the lead. But if trying to (re)move it is gonna start a war... I made this change as a peace offering. I hope we can all live with it. |
|
|
:::::In 2013 in Colorado, some gun rights advocates said that a proposed high-capacity magazine ban would effectively make assault weapons of pump shotguns because they can be altered to hold more than eight shells - the proposed state limit for shotguns. |
|
|
:::::--] (]) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I know of another case where a city seriously considered an "assault weapon" ban that would have banned all semi-automatic shotguns. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hitler reference in History of Term == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following text from this article: <blockquote>During World War II, Adolf Hitler personally chose the name "Sturmgewehr" (literally, "storm rifle", translated in English as "assault rifle") to describe the first (the ]) of a new class of small arm, which combined the characteristics of a ], ] and ].<ref name="Stg44">{{cite web |url=http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html |title=Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945, War Department |publisher=Lonesentry.com |date=May 10, 2007 |accessdate=September 17, 2011}}</ref> A half-decade earlier the propaganda-friendly term "]" ("storm gun") was similarly invented and applied to certain armored military vehicles, turretless tank chassis mounting artillery intended for direct fire support. Otherwise, in English, use of the term "assault weapon" was restricted, prior to the 1980s, to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the ], an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the ] assault rifle.<ref>''Jane's Infantry Weapons 1995–96'', p. 219.</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
I did so because its misleading and potentially ]. First, the Lead of this article clearly states, "The term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle" which usually refers to military rifles capable of switching between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire," so the above text presents a conflict. Second, its an attempt to equate "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" making the terms interchangeable, which they are not. Third, its clearly out of context with the article for how the term is used. The article starts with, "Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms, and that has differing meanings, usages and purposes." And then goes on to mention the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. How Hitler factors into this context is beyond me. --] (]) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. Assault weapons are not assault rifles, those are two different things. And on top of that, I'm not convinced that the term "assault rifle" comes from the term "Sturmgewehr". At any rate, the Nazi / Hitler connection seems to be incorrect, and so is best omitted from the article. <font face="cursive">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></font> 22:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree, too. ] (]) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article Sucks == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is unecyclopedic, extremely wordy, has poor structure (sentence, paragraph, and overall, duplicates in excessive depth topics already covered in other articles, has many unreliable sources, suffers from much agenda pushing, and is currently owned by a few editors who regularly pat themselves on the back. I repaired many of the above things but much more needs to be done. Some will appreciate that especially readers. If some ignoramus wants to make it excessively wordy again remember this. Readers will not read it if it is to long and confusing. So what is the point of that? I am sure some agenda warriors could care less long as their agenda is promoted which is destroying the reputation of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is rightly becoming known as a leftist dominated web site. Many people distrust it and many more are being taught to by agenda pushers.] (]) 07:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For your pleasure or frustration (likely for agenda pushers) I present before: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=608606428 and after: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=608660366 |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK 172, so now that you've had a chance to speak your mind, what are your specific suggestions for improvement? Do you have an outline or another article to suggest that might make for a good template to use? --] (]) 18:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think this editor is blocked. ] (]) 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Nevermind --] (]) 19:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutral lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The term isn't specific to the United States == |
|
Gimme a break - "In the United States, '''assault weapon''' is a political term used by anti gun advocacy groups to define and restrict specific ]s." You guys call that neutral? ] (]) 17:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The term assault weapon is sometimes used by foreigners to describe gun violence in the United States, and sometimes even in countries like Canada to describe the gun violence in their country as well (such as was the case after the ]). I think it's just a bit misleading to start this page off by claiming that this is exclusively used in the United States as if the word "assault weapon" is like speaking Japanese to your average chap in London. It probably originated in the US, but that doesn't make it exclusively American, even if it's most commonly uttered in that country. I know the other section tackled that issue but it's kinda important that we get it across that this word isn't Japanese to the English, it's an American word that is universally understood and sometimes even adopted by other nations (such as Canada). ] (]) 06:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Actually, yes. I would have used "propaganda" rather that "political". — ] ] 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've returned the first sentence of the lede to the way it read prior to November 2014, before someone changed it from "a legal and political term used in firearms laws" to "a term used by anti gun advocacy groups", which clearly isn't neutral and should have been discussed here on the Talk Page first. Regards, ] (]) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
:I agree that the article has a problematic focus on the United States. The term is widely used throughout the world, e.g., this Canadian report . – ] (]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::] - the article doesn't claim it's used exclusively in the US. But it is appallingly US-centric. It definitely needs a rewrite to at least acknowledge the term's us outside the US. ] (]) 22:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::For the lead, one question is whether or not the current version is neutral. Another, separate question is how best to briefly define the term technically. Skipping the neutrality issues for now, I'm going to change it from "Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively" to "Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud". This is better for three reasons. (1) By far the most common definitions include the combination of detachable magazine and pistol grip. The rest tends to vary a lot. (2) It omits, for the lead paragraph, the debate about whether the features are functional, cosmetic, or whatever. That should be covered later in the article. For the lead it's better just to say that they're features. (3) The word "respectively" doesn't make sense in this sentence. <font face="cursive">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></font> 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What is notable, sourced, and true is that it is used by anti-gun groups. All else is secondary. — ] ] 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
:The term is primarily used in a US context. Discussion outside the US usage in the article would make sense but keeping it US focused also makes sense. ] (]) 14:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::::It's also notable and sourced that it has been used by Federal government officials and legislators in passing laws, state governments, the media and social commentators, and even by some in the firearms industry itself. Whose point of view or "truth" are we trying to emphasize then by editing the first sentence of the lede to define it as propaganda by anti-gun groups to restrict firearms? Keeping an article like this NPOV should be our chief concern. Regards, ] (]) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The fact that the term is used '''only''' by or referring to anti-gun activists seems more important than details of the vague and variable "definition" of the term. We can eeasily find sources for ''specific'' definitions; finding a source for what the definitions have in common probably was difficult, but I see it has been done. — ] ] 03:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::On second thought, that it is used to restrict firearms seems adequate to indicate that it is only used by anti-gun groups. I often oppose "piling on", even when all the facts are properly sourced and otherwise relevant. The phrase "anti-gun advocacy groups" is clearly neutral, but unnecessary. — ] ] 11:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
"Assault weapon" is a term created by gun manufacturers and used by the gun press. ''The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons'' 2007 ISBN 0896894983. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance, and in this article it's POV-pushing. I'm going to put back a common-sense definition in the lead. Leave the spin to somewhere else. ] (]) 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
The term assault weapon is sometimes used by foreigners to describe gun violence in the United States, and sometimes even in countries like Canada to describe the gun violence in their country as well (such as was the case after the the shooting spree in Nova Scotia back in 2020). I think it's just a bit misleading to start this page off by claiming that this is exclusively used in the United States as if the word "assault weapon" is like speaking Japanese to your average chap in London. It probably originated in the US, but that doesn't make it exclusively American, even if it's most commonly uttered in that country. I know the other section tackled that issue but it's kinda important that we get it across that this word isn't Japanese to the English, it's an American word that is universally understood and sometimes even adopted by other nations (such as Canada). MountainJew6150 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
