Taxus Baccata

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Gun politics C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

An RfC related to this topic, Wound characteristics of military-style rifles, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See archive. -The Gnome (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently says "The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, and the media." But the article with the support of 2 different sources says it may have been from the "firearms industry". I see a sock has also been trying to add [1] another source [2] which also says the same thing. That source is relying on the book we are already using, but although I think it's an opinion piece (well I don't see where it's branded as such, but it sure reads like one), it's coming from what is I assume an RS so should help if there are doubts over the book. I'd also note that both the book and the National Review piece seem to hardly be gun control proponents/"the media" trying to "re-invent history" or something. The NR in particular is a gun control opponent claiming that it was invented by the firearms industry and co-opted by gun control advocates etc. Given all that, should the lead be modified to mention the firearms industry as another possible source for origin of the term? Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see the origin issue has been discussed a few times before but all of them seem to be from fairly different versions and I think often not to do with the lead. That said I didn't find any discussion where it's suggested that the firearms industry as an inventor is not well supported enough. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to resurrect this talk section, but the term "firearms industry" was added to that cited sentence after this talk section was last updated. I've removed the aforementioned term. The University of Dayton article states that the term "assault weapon" was first used by the German military-industrial complex to designate the Sturmgewehr 44. The focus of the Wikipedia article is the term used in the United States by the media and by federal and state government sources to certain firearms with listed features. To say or imply that the German military-industrial complex of World War II is the same as the American private firearms industry is, as any one of us is likely smart enough to figure out, BS. Again, the article is about a modern American term for "military-style rifles" and related armaments, with an emphasis on modern. A designation used in 1944 by the Wehrmacht is irrelevant and detracts from the lede. Feel free to further discuss this with me if you have any questions or concerns. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a recently added item from the lead. The item cited a Jan 2019 study stating a correlation between mass shootings and the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. I've removed this material for several reasons. The first is that the lead should follow the body. While the 1994 ban is discussed in the body, the impact is not. Thus the lead doesn't follow the body. Second, the wiki text was not accurate per the cited article. The article only discussed the 1994 federal ban while the Wiki text could reasonably be read to mean all assault weapons bans (presumably the many state level bans) Third, this article largely avoids the discussion of the merits of such laws so it may be UNDUE to introduce just a small fraction of the much larger discussion of that topic. I don't have an opinion regarding if such information should or shouldn't be part of this article only that if included it should be done in a comprehensive way. Finally, the impact of the 1994 ban is complex and not clear cut. The Wiki article on the 1994 ban has an extensive section discussing the impact of the law including the correlation with mass shootings.[[3]] That section represents the primary article and discussion on the subject. This newly released study may find a home in that section. Springee (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can introduce this in the body of the text aswell.

The conclusions of the source is "Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004."

How do you propose summarizing it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose we don't add it to the lead at all. Again we have a primary article on the subject and we shouldn't give undueb weight to a single study given the large number of related studies. In the body we might summarize the intro paragraph from the primary article section. However, since this article is about the term/definition "assault weapon" vs a particular law let's send the reader to the article that has all the details. We could change the primary topic tag to include mention of the impact of the law. WP:SUMMARY applies here. BTW, the new article's conclusions are already in line with the primary topic. Springee (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary should be here. If this article was just about the "definition" than it should be called "definition of assault weapon" to make room for an article about the general topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems overdetailed for the lede. Probably merits a sentence in the section about the 1994 ban. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to just point to the primary article since the topic is complex. Perhaps something like a sentence that says:

The ban had no statistical impact on overall homicide rates but is correlated with a decrease in mass-shooting related homicides.

Further information: Federal Assault Weapons Ban § Effects

I think that would avoid the need to provide any specific citations while, still give the reader a summary and point to the location of the detailed information. Springee (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is much of Federal Assault Weapons Ban#Effects is based on outdate sources. Will it is true that 10 years ago there was not enough evidence to draw conclusions this has now changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't true in that sentence or what is likely to become untrue? If some study were to come out and change everything we can change the text at that time. Springee (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that that correlation is not cause, so it's rather dishonest to present it as if the two are related. Yearly ice cream sales are directly correlated to shark attacks, that doesn't mean ice cream sales cause shark attacks. In addition, it's dubious as to whether the variation in mass shootings during the AWB is statistically significant: some studies say it is and some say it isn't. Bones Jones (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following Military Assault Weapon category be added to this article or made into a separate article? Naturally it needs to be wikified and referenced properly. Jrcrin001 (talk)

"Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 feet (300–500 metres), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies."

This accepted description is for an assault rifle (https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle) is a term from Britannica. A military assault rifle is an assault weapon. A military assault weapon is not a civilian redefined "assault weapon." The specific use of the term "Assault weapon" is not the same.

Briefly, a military assault weapon can be a rifle, sub-machine gun or a pistol capable of automatic fire.

A military assault weapon (rifle or sub-machine gun or pistol) is a weapon used in a military Combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat) Assault (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault) by using automatic fire (one trigger pull for many bullets going out the barrel) to suppress enemy reaction. HINT: Automatic weapons have been illegal for civilians to own since 1934 National Firearms Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) in the USA. Military Assault weapons are a category of firearms (aka firearm weapons) that are capable of automatic fire. Pull the trigger and the weapon (aka the firearm) fires repeatedly until the cartridge magazine is empty. That defines an Automatic firearm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm).

Automatic firearms do include Machine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun)s (MG). A “MG” is usually used statically because it is heavy and uses sustained fire. An Assault weapon is designed to be much lighter and used in burst fire during a military style assault or in Close-quarters combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-quarters_combat). Some Assault weapons have a selector switch to allow Semi-automatic fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) and some smaller ones do not have this option.

Some Assault weapons, with exceptions for the early versions (like the BAR), use a cut down rifle cartridge (like the AK-47) or use pistol ammunition (aka cartridges) or a variation of them.

Assault Rifles are “automatic capable.” Like the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle) (aka BAR), M16 rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle), AK-47 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47), M4 carbine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine), AK-74 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74), et cetera. Assault Submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun)s (SMG) are “automatic capable.” Like the Thompson submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun), Sterling submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun), Beretta M1918 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M1918) and the Uzi submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi_submachine_gun) and the carbine version.

Assault pistols aka Machine pistol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_pistol)s and compact sub-machine guns are “automatic capable.” One of the first was the *Steyr Repetierpistole* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_M1912) M1912/P16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_M1912). More modern versions are like the Micro Uzi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi#Micro-Uzi), Glock 18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_18), Makarov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9718mm_Makarov) Stechkin automatic pistol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stechkin_automatic_pistol) (APS), Škorpion vz. 61 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0korpion_vz._61), and the MAC-10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC-10) and MAC-11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC-11).

Again the key aspect of military assault weapons is that they are capable of firing repeatedly on automatic mode. I.E. An Automatic firearm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm) that is NOT a traditional machine gun. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Assault rifle. VQuakr (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Assault Rifle is a specific type of battle rifle capable of automatic fire. It does not define all automatic military weapons. As I wrote: A military "assault weapon can be a rifle, sub-machine gun or a pistol capable of automatic fire."
Politicians define an AR-15 type rifle as an assault weapon. The military does not see the AR-15 as an "Assault Rifle" but as a semi-automatic rifle. The point is the difference in the terms and use between military use and political use of the term "assault weapon." That is seriously lacking in the article. An Assault Rifle is just one of many "assault weapons" in the various militaries around the world. The USA political term seems mostly focused on the appearance of semi-automatic rifles/pistols. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is needed, as we have assault rifle, SMG and machine pistol articles, and this article is really about the term "Assault weapon" used to refer to a particular type of firearm in the US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct on specific articles. This "Assault weapon" article is based on the USA political effort to define "assault weapons" for a political purpose. And that is in stark contrast to how the militaries around the world define the term "assault weapons." Since the military terms defining "assault weapons" is ignored in the article and is in so distinctly different from the political term, that is why I believe it needs to be made clear. The military term was made first about WWI into WWII (say 1914 to 1947ish) and the political term defines itself from the 1980s. I believe it is very improper to use just the newer political term only. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on subjects, not names. Assault weapon (military) would be a poor name because of potential for confusion with the subject of this article. Is it even a commonly-used term in a military context? It sounds like you are just describing automatic weapons. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any distinct military meaning; it's just a two word sequence they have used. I remember an artillery piece that the term was used for. While there is variability within the US political uses (sometimes even within the same sentence), there are common themes to it's political usages making the latter IMO suitable and important to cover in an article. . North8000 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only military uses of the term I'm familiar with are for one specific automatic shotgun project (HK CAWS, "close assault weapon system"), a reasonably common misconception about one machine gun (M249 SAW translated as "squad assault weapon" rather than "squad automatic weapon") and a period when it was used in describing man-portable launchers designed for attacking fortifications (Brunswick RAW, FGM-172 SRAW, Mk 153 SMAW, M141 SMAW-D and Urban Assault Weapon). It is not used to describe any of the weapons the OP specifies. OP also confuses a number of other categories, including that the BAR was an assault rifle (it was classified as a light machine gun) and that an assault rifle is a "type of battle rifle" (doesn't fit the modern definition of "battle rifle" which is a select-fire weapon issued to individual soldiers that fires a full-power rifle bullet rather than an intermediate cartridge). Bones Jones (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is the only one the US Army actually calls an assault weapon....shoulder fired rocket launcher to destroy tanks. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are sometimes about terms. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject Perhaps this one is a good candidate for that? There is no consistent "subject" underlying this article. Admittedly there is a danger, depending on how it is done it could either worsen or help the problem of the conflation of the the "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" terms/. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything the OP mentioned can be covered under automatic weapon. As established in this thread, this is not a term in common military usage. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across a State of California application BOF 4082 Military Assault Weapon Permit. Apparently the State of California defines a civilian "assault weapon" one way and a "military assault weapon" capable of automatic fire differently. See:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/mawpapp.pdf
See also: Section 4137 "Activities Sanctioned by Military -Assault Weapons" (typo is theirs) - see page 12 at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter7.pdf
Then there is apparent conflict in defining military assault weapons as "personal assault weapons" in "Chapter 7 Dangerous Weapons" which includes machines guns and military assault weapons. Page 8: "(g) Military personnel permitted to use personal assault weapons in military sanctioned activities shall maintain records of those activities."
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter7.pdf
It appears clear to me that in California "military assault weapons" are conflated with "personal assault weapons" in the Dangerous Weapon Chapter 7 that includes automatic weapons.
Has anyone researched other American states for any clarity between "military assault weapons" and politically defined semi-automatic "assault weapons?" Curious! Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politics includes deliberate conflation between the terms. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Assault Weapon is a Selective Fire weapon capable of both Full Auto and Semi-Auto fire. The 1st standard issue Assault Weapon listed in history is generally conceded to be what is known as the STG-44 made by the Germans in WW2. This weapon WAS selective fire. Calling any NON-selective fire firearm an "Assault Weapon" is incorrect and is used only for political propaganda purposes.False Data (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could be true for some less common usages of the term, but the more common meaning is the one that is a political invention to refer to what have become the everyday all-purpose rifles in the US. "Assault rifle" clearly includes selective fire and the political term meaning of "assault weapon" does not. And there are people who want confusion to imply that common US rifles are the same as military ones with selective fire / "machine gun" capability. And so information on the distinction between the two is important. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assault weapons are not used in the majority of mass shootings; pistols are about twice as common of weapon.^[1] Overall, we'd need more info to see what in this article you think reflects NRA talking points. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The word "hoax" doesn't appear in our article. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I am not surprised that you want to argue semantics in the talk page, since the entire article is devoted to semantic debates over the WORD "Assualt Weapons" rather than the proper topic of the article, namely, Assault Weapons themselves. To rebut your point, please note that the article states as follows: ′"Meanwhile, many gun rights activists have put forward that the term originated from the media or gun control activists. Conservative writer Rich Lowry said that assault weapon is a "manufactured term".[24] Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) wrote in 1994: "One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called 'assault weapons' is to foster confusion. As stated previously, the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm."[4] Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said "the term 'assault weapon,' as used by the media, is a MEDIA INVENTION."′[6]

I hope that disposes of your point. I'm sorry I used the word hoax rather than "Media Invention." Nevertheless, despite the excruciatingly length you spend on covering the disproven views of the Second Amendment Foundation on the origin of the WORD "Assault Weapon," the article spends 0 words explaining why people are opposed to the THING Assault Weapons-- to wit, that they are commonly used to kill large numbers of people quickly. Not only is this not mentioned in the lead of the article, there is not even a section on the reasons people oppose Assault Weapons in an article about Assault Weapons. Please explain why an encyclopedic article on Assault Weapons does not contain a section on the reasons people oppose their use (namely, that they are used for killing large numbers of humans quickly, with minimum inconvenience for the shooter, in case you've forgotten) or why these reasons should not be given prominent mention in the lead. Failing that, please explain why this article should not be tagged as lacking a neutral point of view, as I am requesting. Many thanks. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia policies state that all prominent controversies regarding a topic should be covered not only in the article, but in the lead. This article violates that policy, by not discussing the reasons people oppose the use of Assault Weapons. Wikipedia's neutrality policy also requires that views be given DUE WEIGHT. Here, we find an article ostensibly on Assault Weapons which fails to discuss the reasons critics have for opposing the use of Assault Weapons, which are the very topic of the article. Hence the article as it stands flagrantly contravenes Wikipedia policy. You have not offered any explanation as to why an article on Assault Weapons that purports to be encyclopedic should not provide ANY INFORMATION on the reasons their use is opposed. Nor do you explain how DUE WEIGHT is being given when the views of the Second Amendment Foundation on the origins of the WORD "Assault Weapons" is discussed at far greater length than the reasons people have for opposing the THING Assault Weapons themselves. I did not draw a conclusion, but simply stated these reasons in summarized form and asked why this viewpoint is not included and covered extensively in its own section, when the tangential viewpoints of organizations such as the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation on the semantics of "Assault Weapons" are discussed at such great length. How exactly does this pass DUE WEIGHT? The fact that such material is also relevant at Gun Control has no bearing on whether it is also relevant here. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is obligated under its own policies to present the controversy on both pages. We don't simply segregate the pro-gun material to Assault Weapons and say the criticism of Assault Weapons belongs under Gun Control. That is patently absurd. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You set an impossible standard. There is no unique "the THING" defined as an assault weapon; the definition varies by jurisdiction. So we say that, and link to specific legislation. Reasoning for and against gun control simply isn't within the scope of this article. That isn't a DUE issue; it only becomes a problem if we break the articles up by POV as discussed at WP:NPOVFACT. We devote zero words in this article to "why AWs are good", and will continue to devote zero words to "why AWs are bad". VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article is Assault Weapons. The reasons people have for opposing the use of Assault Weapons in particular (as opposed to firearms in general) is certainly within the scope of the Assault Weapons article. I am emphasizing the distinction between Things vs Words, because Wikipedia articles aren't about words but about the thing the word purports to name. I did not suggest we need a section on the reasons "AWS are good" (as you sneered) but rather on why their use is notably opposed by large numbers of people and why there have been calls for their ban in particular (as opposed to the ban of all firearms.) Such debate is obviously relevant at this page, and you've not explained why the current article is merely about the discussion of the NRA and similar organizations' mistaken beliefs that the term "Assault Weapon" is a "media invention." Being encyclopedic, giving due weight to prominent views, and discussing relevant controversies in an article about a topic is not an impossible standard. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sneer-free over here. I've explained that there is no universally defined "thing" to be the subject of this article. I don't know how that can be made clearer. The only usage of the phrase "media invention" in the article is in an -attributed direct quote, at the end of a section that neutrally describes the origin of the term as debated. Your proposal to inject one side of the gun control debate into this article is rather obviously not going to happen. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest adding material regarding "the gun control debate" to the Assault Weapons article but rather the debate over Assault Weapons. Prominent controversies regarding a topic MUST, per Wikipedia policy, be covered in an article on that topic, and given mention in the lead. While the "gun control debate" is not material here, criticism and debate regarding Assault Weapons is certainly relevant to a page that purports to be about Assault Weapons. Whether or not such debate over Assault Weapons will be added to an Encyclopedia article that claims to be about Assault Weapons, I cannot say (I do not predict the future) though it rather obviously should be, given the topic of the article and the Wikipedia policies I have repeatedly cited.

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

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

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

Whether or not the topic of the article is set up in the lead as the meaning of "Assault Weapon", the topic of the article is Assault Weapons, not the TERM assault weapons. (Recall that Wikipedia is not dictionary.) Per Wikipedia policy, prominent controversies regarding a topic (here, the topic is Assault Weapons) must be covered in the article. Please do not remove a NPOV tag before adequate discussion of the neutrality and due weight concern being raised. The fact that "Assault Weapons" are not as well-defined as "Revolvers" does not mean that prominent controversies regarding Assault Weapons should not be covered in the article about Assault Weapons. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sometimes is a dictionary; read the policy you linked down to WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Again, we obviously are not going to insert one side of the "controversy" as you desire. You are not the arbiter of whether adequate discussion has occurred; any experienced editor is going to be clear that your suggestion simply is not happening. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that only one side of a controversy be presented. Both sides of a controversy regarding a topic should obviously be discussed and adequately treated in an encyclopedic article on that subject. Whether or not "it's simply not happening," you've not provided any reasons why a prominent controversy regarding a topic should not be treated in an article on the topic (other than "the subject is poorly defined" which is a pretty poor reason to omit relevant material from an article.) 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes articles can be about a term. If that weren't the case then this article would not exist because the term has such widely varying official meanings that there would be no distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term is notable in large part because of the controversy regarding Assault Weapons, something one would not learn from reading the article. In fact, one learns almost nothing from reading this article. It fails to provide relevant material on the topic it claims to cover and fails to discuss the relevant and prominent controversies regarding that topic, in clear contravention of Wikipedia policy. Terms which are imprecise and the controversies regarding that which those terms claim to name can perfectly well be treated in an encyclopedic fashion. Most, indeed nearly all, terms are imprecise. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As described above, it is not merely "imprecise"; there is no distinct topic other than the term itself. North8000 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article's name is "Assault Weapons," not "The Term 'Assault Weapons'" As stated in the Disambiguation link on top of the page "This article is about firearms restricted by some United States laws." It does not say "This article is about the Origin of the term 'Assault Weapon.'" And even if it did, relevant controversies regarding 'Assault Weapons' would still be germane to the topic of the article and would require treatment in the article. There are numerous topics, such as "Assault" or "Weapons," which are variable meaning terms with differing definitions, yet we have articles on these topics which manage to discuss relevant controversies regarding the topic at hand. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is about a term, you do not put "the term" in the title. And again, if it wasn't about the term, this article could not exist. North8000 (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term is notable due to the controversies surrounding it, which are not restricted to semantic debates over what constitutes an assault weapon and the etymology of the term and whether it is a "media invention" etc. Numerous terms are variable meaning, are constitutively imprecise, yet we manage to cover relevant controversies regarding those topics within those articles. Indeed, policies are extremely clear that relevant controversies related to a topic must be covered. Failure to do so violates NPOV. The fact that there is no "universal definition" of assault weapon is not relevant. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the points made and going in circles. The controversy IS covered. You are arguing for something further that requires positing that something exists (a single type of firearm defined by the term) which doesn't, and are ignoring attempts to explain that.North8000 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not posited that "there is a single type of firearm defined by the term." Where exactly in the article are controversies regarding the topic of the article (as stated in the header "firearms restricted by some United States laws") covered? Where in the article are the reasons for these restrictions given? 108.30.187.155 (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that you are only unknowingly ignoring the point. So what are you proposing covering about these (pictured):....the first is an actual assault weapon, the second (based on magazine size) and third (based on being semi-automatic) have been included in the various legal definitions of "assault weapon". North8000 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll assume that you are ignoring my point because you are having difficulty comprehending it, rather than arguing in bad faith. The term 'weapon' is certainly vaguely defined but we have an article on the topic that is not solely devoted to definitional disputes on the word 'weapon.' Being vaguely defined does not preclude encyclopedic coverage of topic. "So what are you proposing..." For a start, the article ought to include the reasons various groups have sought to prohibit the use of assault weapons, since that is obviously at least as relevant to the article as the regurgitation of NRA talking points that the term 'Assault Weapon' is a "media invention."108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my two cents: (1) The article as currently written does a pretty good job of presenting a neutral point of view. I don't see it as repeating NRA talking points, except perhaps in the context of presenting multiple points of view. (2) The article talks a lot about the definition of the term, and it also talks a lot about federal legislation. That's good. But it doesn't talk much about the controversy over whether or not assault weapons should be banned, or otherwise regulated more than other firearms. This is in the United States, at a federal, state, or local level. In my view the article could have a lot more material about that, it's an oft-discussed topic. Personally I am not planning on adding it myself -- so many articles, so little time -- but that's what I think anyway. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: per WP:SUMMARY we shouldn't say much about the pros and cons of assault weapons legislation since more detail can be found at Assault weapons legislation in the United States, which we correctly link to from the appropriate section with the "main" template. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: In my humble opinion, the controversy about the pros and cons of assault weapons legislation is an important part of the topic of assault weapons, and this article would be better if it had significantly more coverage of that. The "Assault weapons legislation in the United States" article is also light on coverage of the controversy, but that's okay, I would say, because that other article is mostly about all the different laws themselves. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Assault weapons" refers to a vaguely defined term that was made up by gun rights and gun control advocates as well as the media to describe various things. The article presents numerous POVs on the subject because that is necessary when there is not a legitimate definition of assault weapon, as opposed to the very clearly defined "assault rifle." That is not NRA propaganda, considering we still use numerous left-wing sources for context. Bill Williams 23:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if the term is "vaguely defined?" There are plenty of subjects with vague definitions, such as "media," "gun control", "left wing," to name 3 terms which you used above which are given encyclopedic treatment on Wikipedia, yet whose articles are not SOLELY DEVOTED TO DEFINITIONAL QUIBBLES ABOUT SAID TERM. All of those terms are at least as vague as the term "Assault Weapon." As for your claim that there is a balance of perspectives in the article, this simply isn't true. For example, look here: "Prominent gun-control groups that support restrictions on ownership of firearms include the Brady Campaign[49] and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.[50] Prominent opponents of assault-weapons bans include the National Rifle Association[51] and Gun Owners of America.[52] In 2002, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Jim Baker said "assault weapons" is a pejorative term.[53] The National Shooting Sports Foundation considers it a politically driven catchphrase aimed to conflate non-automatic weapons with full-automatic assault rifles.[48]" So the article MERELY NAMES 2 gun-control groups and states that they "support restrictions on ownership of firearms" IN GENERAL, while quoting extensively the considered views of the NRA and a similar organization that "Assault Weapons" is "pejorative" and is a "politically driven catchphrase." How is this balance when the article fails to mention the reasons gun-control proponents have for banning assault weapons in particular, yet extensively quotes from the NRA? 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS In addition, had you read the article before posting here, you would know the article itself rebuts the NRA talking point you've quoted that "assault weapons is a media invention", and does so from a right-wing source, The Gun Buyers Digest Guide to Assault Weapons: "The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun." Nor does it matter one whit to the question at hand (the neutrality of the article) where the term came from. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assault weapons is a term made up over the past few decades, while left-wing has been used far longer and is much more well defined, even if vague. People quite literally identify as left-wing, while a gun cannot magically come out and say that it identifies as an assault-weapon, that is just a label put on it by others. And those others staunchly disagree on the precise definition because the term is extremely vague. That is not due to the NRA, GOA, the media or gun control advocates but it based on the fact that numerous different types of weapons have a pistol grip and detachable magazine, which are the only static parts of any definition of an assault weapon. Bill Williams 16:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to back away from the horse carcass. VQuakr (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s time to stop poisoning the well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk • contribs)

Suure. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"Many groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, support bans on assault weapons, stating "Assault weapons are dangerous, military-style guns that are built to do the most damage and kill or maim the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time." ^[1] Other groups are opposed to restrictions on the use of assault weapons, arguing that ""the term 'assault weapon'... is a media invention."^[2]. After the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many news organizations ran stories about assault weapons, explaining their varying definitions and presenting varying opinions about whether they should be banned again at the federal level.^[3][4][5]"108.30.187.155 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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