Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244

Background

The text has been proposed or added to Assault rifle, Assault weapon and AR-15 style rifle.

Survey questions

1. Is the New York Times article a reliable source for this statement?

2. If the statement is found to be reliably sourced, which article (if any) should it be added to? If the source is found to be reliable, which article(s) (if any) is it a reliable source for? (

• OPPOSE INCLUSION FOR ALL ARTICLES...by definition, anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

RAF910, "interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience" on this topic is not anecdotal evidence by any definition, much less a news article based on them among other sources. If that's what your opposition is based on, you might want to rethink it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article is filled with hyperbole. For example "The exit wounds can be a foot wide." Really? Someone please tell me where I can get 5.56mm ammo that will produce an exit hole larger than a basketball. Maybe you should rethink your support.--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, the NYT is not a RS for medical information and has an axe to grind on this issue. This is not MEDRS compliant AFAIK. And it is also filled with hyperbole due to the gun debate in the US. The reality is a tad more nuanced - there are high velocity handguns on the one hand, and the M-16/AR-15 small caliber has actually led it to be ineffective against body armor - with the army looking at 6.8mm [50] and 7.62. Interviewed surgeons invariably (in any conflict) bemoan the damage caused by bullets (whether they stay in or zip out). We should stick to a solid medical (or cadaver/dummy) studies, of which I am sure there are several, which are not linked to the gun control debate.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify my !vote in light of comments below - In "axe to grind" I was referring to this being coverage related to the gun debate in the US. The NYT, is, of course considered the gold plate in journalism in the US (and beyond). However, the underlying source of the information (surgeon interviews as opposed to an actual study), the rather inaccurate language (e.g. exponentially which is technically incorrect here), and the sensationalist (as opposed to technical) tone - makes this a far from perfect source for bullet wound dynamics. It is definitely reliable to say that trauma surgeons said so in an interview - so in that sense the NYT is a RS - however per

  WP:MEDRS (and I do see bullet wounds as "biomedical information" per MEDRS) such a primary statement should be avoided. Finally, there are actually several review studies available for bullet wound characteristics - which would be a much better source.Icewhiz (talk

  ) 10:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not usable for anything here. I get a feeling that the journalist has done some heavy editing on what the trauma specialists said, without knowing what he/she was doing, because I doubt they said what the article says. The energy does not depend entirely on bullet velocity, as the article seems to claim when mentioning the lower velocity of handgun bullets, but on velocity when entering the target and bullet weight (½ x bullet weight x velocity squared), which since handguns usually have heavy bullets (ranging from ~125 grain for a 9mm to ~230 grain for a .45ACP) while the 5.56x45mm NATO (which is the caliber they were talking about, since that's what the M-16 and most AR-15s are chambered for) usually have bullets in the 55-70 grain range, and handguns are used at short range while rifles are used at longer range, means that a handgun bullet can very well have the same energy when hitting the target as a 5.56mm rifle bullet has. Which a surgeon with military experience of course would know. The material has been repeatedly added to Assault rifle and Assault weapon, i.e. articles about weapons, where it most definitely does not belong, for these reasons (copied from a post of mine at Talk:Assault rifle):

"They (i.e. wound characteristics) are totally irrelevant in this article since it isn't the rifle as such that causes the wound, but the ammunition/bullet. How severe a wound is, i.e. penetration, size of wound cavity etc etc, depends entirely on the cartridge (bullet diameter, bullet length, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity when entering the target etc), not on what type of weapon that was used. The barrel length matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity, but what type of action the weapon has, what it looks like, whether it has a removable magazine or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. Which is why wound characteristics belong in articles about specific cartridges (and many articles about military cartridges already have such information), not in articles about different types of weapons."

So, as I wrote there, the only article that kind of material might belong in is

5.56x45mm, but that article already has that kind of information (scroll down a bit and you'll find illustrations and all...), much more professional information to boot, so I see no use at all for the kind of unprofessional sensationalist information the NYT article provides. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes the New York Times is a reliable source for reporting the assessments of experts in this or any other field. Dismissing such as merely "anecdotal evidence" strikes me as a bit odd. I'll pass on the question of which article(s) are appropriate for this information. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."--RAF910 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a difficult set of questions as phrased. It depends greatly on what context. The NYT source suffers from being politically motivated and lacking some requisite technical details but that alone doesn't exclude it. It is a poor quality source on this topic which already has good, technical sources in
  5.56x45 NATO. Which article it is fit for raises questions of NPOV and DUE weight which cannot be decided here. —DIYeditor (talk
  ) 21:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• YES INCLUDE for all the articles. Of course the NYT is a credible source of information and the damage caused by AR-15 is specifically described. Several respondents above act as if their own expertise matters, when it does not. Wikpedia is about including facts from credible sources. They are welcome to add other articles that further cover the subject that may disagree with the statements of the trauma surgeons cited in the NYT article. But to exclude such content is wholly inappropriate. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" as the saying goes. It's factual, it's from a credible source, include it. Then decide how to balance it if you have other credible factual sources that disagree.Farcaster (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • All what articles? All the articles on Wikipedia? This is RSN, being a reliable source doesn't make something fit for inclusion in any given article. It could be an entirely reliable and factual source but you can't just pop it into the Opossum article. Which articles in particular are you saying this is a RS for? And that still doesn't answer whether it is DUE. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The articles are listed above. Please read what you are commenting on.Farcaster (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my apologies, I didn't see that line. Not listed is the most relevant article which I could see it going in and the one I had suggested:
        5.56x45 NATO. —DIYeditor (talk
        ) 00:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Inadequate It isn't a very good source when more academic works on the subject may be found. Concerning two of the doctors cited in the article, they mention the rarity with which they operate on someone having these wounds and that doesn't go well with describing them as experts. "Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims..." concerning Dr. Kerby. Concerning Dr. Gupta, "Attacks using AR-15-style weapons are still rare, he emphasized. He sees mostly handgun wounds and some from shotguns." Better sourcing with more collated data from actual experts en masse is needed and available. Try books about ballistic wounds. Trying to use a NYT article for this subject is a hack job.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for the first question per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. As for the second question, that's beyond the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, after reading the NYT article more closely, I don't think the proposed text is completely accurate in capturing the what the source is saying. First, while it does say that 3 of the doctors served in the military, but does not say how they served. Perhaps they were surgeons. Perhaps they were infantry. We don't know because the article doesn't say. Second, unless I missed it, I don't think it supports the text "both military and civilian variants". Therefore, I would propose the following:

• Source has serious issues, these wounds are not inflicted because they are from a military style rifle, but instead because they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge, the type of rifle is incidental. This is equivalent to saying being hit by a MAN truck is in some way worse than being hit by a Mercedes truck, despite the two travelling at identical speeds and having identical fronts.
  talk
  ) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
  • Logic needs work; the cartridge by itself does nothing; throwing it does little damage.Farcaster (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you should read what I wrote, "they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge", who said anything about throwing? Rather than simply making snide comments about those who hold opposing views from your own, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with

talk

) 23:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• To clarify:

Q1 - yes source is reliable by definition no source is not reliable - thank you to

talk

) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC).

Q2 - none of the above - it lacks the specificity to be included in any of the above pages, nor any others that I am aware of.

talk

) 00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

Surely it could be included on the AR-15 or M-16 pages, which are specifically mentioned in the source? –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No I do not believe it can. The AR-15 action in its various guises comes in various chamberings and these are not specified, whilst the M16 is only mentioned in passing. If the article specified a cartridge it would be a different argument. My criticism of the article above stands.

talk

) 05:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

• Hm.

PMID 19644779

is a review from 2009; they are the most on-point MEDRS reviews and both say the same thing -- that tissue damage from a bullet is a function of the kinetic energy of the bullet; the kinetic energy = one-half the mass times velocity squared. So velocity is by far the most important aspect. The velocity is dependent on the weapon, with handguns providing far less than rifles, with shotguns in between but depending on the range, causing more damage due to the multiple projectiles. Both articles walk through that and talk about the resulting injuries. The shape of the bullet also matters, and whether it tumbles or fragments. They also make it clear that the temporary cavitation when a high velocity bullet passes through tissue is much larger than with a low velocity bullet, and that inelastic organs like the brain, liver, and spleen are devastated by large temporary cavitation from high velocity bullets. This is what the surgeons in the NYT article talked about the most.

The Hartford Consensus from 2015 also talks about this; it is a high quality MEDRS source -- a clinical guideline. It doesn't go into the same deal but see example page 30, left column, where the stuff I just wrote is reviewed.

This document from the military about kinds of wounds, and wound management, says the same thing as well. It also names kinds of weapons, so will be more useful with respect to adding content to specific articles.

All four of those are MEDRS and say the same thing as the NYT.

In my view the content should absolutely come in in the relevant articles about guns and rifles and shotguns, with these sources. The NYT ref can be used to a) provide as a "lay summary" and b) connect the generic types of weapons discussed in these pages to the specific models, if that is needed. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

btw

PMID 26958801

is a primary source, reviewing autopsy reports of civilian mass casualty shootings, and comparing those to battlefield wounds. It notes that there is a much higher mortality rate with civilians because a) civilians aren't wearing protection so head and chest "hits" are devastating; b) civilian shootings tend to be close range. That is addressing comments above bringing in issues of range, with respect to velocity.

An aside -- in the course of looking for sources, I came across this article from the UK about care of wounded soldiers, which has some history and some horrific pictures that were hard to see. It is Memorial Day tomorrow in the US. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Jytdog, these sources from how you have described them seem quite useful and appropriate. The discussion of different rounds and weapons in the military document would make this appropriate for the Assault rifle article and could be used to expand the individual weapon and round articles (at least one of which already has this discussion in technical detail). The military document does on the other hand list among common misconceptions velocity being the most important factor. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

glad you are pleased. Please be careful not to cherry-pick. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally have no concern with how lethal or devastating any round or weapon is described to be as long as it is well sourced and accurate. From my knowledge 5.56mm AR-15s do produce massive wounds. I was brought to this discussion by concern over the manner in which a secondary dictionary definition was added to the Assault rifle article, not any interest in hiding discussion on the lethality of these weapons. I should mention that you are right, it is good to remember Memorial Day in this discussion. —DIYeditor (talk)

Your knowledge is wrong. 5.56mm rifles produce massive wounds. They produce massive wounds whether the rifle is a 5.56mm AR-15 or a 5.56mm Ranch Rifle with the same barrel length firing the same ammunition. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Source is reliable, but lack of specificity limits applicability to a few articles The source in question makes some generalized statements about bullet wound characteristics without specifying the cartridge(s) from which the bullets creating the observed wounds were fired, although it may be inferred the cartridge would have been the
  Hydrostatic shock (firearms) focusing on description of bullet injuries. Its usefulness for the 5.56×45mm NATO article would be conditioned upon positive identification of that cartridge to the described injuries. It would not be appropriate for articles describing firearms suitable for multiple cartridges because of the erroneous implication the firearm rather than the cartridge is a primary determinant of injury characteristics. Thewellman (talk
  ) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The NYT is a reliable source, but it may need to be attributed if any RS challenges any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Yes, obviously a RS and should be included. Contrary to some assertions above, the muzzle velocity and damage caused is certainly not a function of the cartridge only. It also depends on the barrel, and is generally greater for longer barrel lengths. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Of course it's an obvious RS, regardless of whatever original research or fantasies people concoct to try and change that fact. Maybe should be attributed at most. Some of the comments here are frankly ridiculous ("I know better than the writer therefore it's not RS!") Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. A reliable source. Objections seem to be special pleading here. Neutrality^talk 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to minimize edit conflicts

• I think that question #1 kind of misses the point. Why do we care about whether a source is "reliable"? It's so we know whether we can "rely" on it, in our quest to get our facts straight in the article. Are these claims accurate? Well, looking at some even more obviously reliable sources, the answer is "yes". Can you rely on this source? Yes. Is it possible to substitute in a gold-plated academic source? Yes. Is using the "best" source necessary? Well, it's not required by any policy, but as a matter of practical politics, people who don't like the content will have a much harder time saying "You didn't say
  Mother, May I? when you added that content, because that's only an acceptable source rather than the best possible kind!" (I find it hard to believe that people who know anything about firearms would even pretend that a class of rifles that was originally designed for the US military would be no more dangerous to its targets, or even any different from, any other firearm that can shoot any of the same cartridges. Muzzle velocity is significantly affected by the barrel, not just the cartridge. To put it another way, everything in this list uses the same cartridge, but they do not have identical effects.) WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable Source can be used wherever it is relevant. Journalist conveying qualified expert knowledge. That's what journalists do. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• No, Misleading. The removed content stated "assault rifles, both military and civilian variants:" This would incorrectly lead readers to believe all AR's are assault rifles. The content also attempted to mislead readers by asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured.

I do not believe comparing a rifle with a hand gun is relavent to the proposed articles. It is common knowledge that most rifles are more powerful than a hand gun. The removed content also stated "“What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast" compared to a hand gun. The content is making a very specific claims with velocity, it is just on the high end of this caliber with a very specific barrel length, twist rate and bullet weight. Most rifle calibers have this speed and beyond (with a much bigger bullet). This caliber makes this speed because of it very light and small varmit size bullet. Because mass times speed equals energy, this caliber on the high end has about the same energy as a 44 Magnum, 50 AE, .454 Casull, and about half of .500 S&W Magnum. Most rifles far surpass this. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons.

It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge.

In most states it is illegal to hunt deer or anything larger with this caliber ammunition, it doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.

The

WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms , or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ." -72bikers (talk

) 23:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• No Since this fits the definition of
  WP:MEDPOP. As Icewhiz has pointed out, there appear to be several decent MEDRS-compliant sources on the topic, those should just be used instead. Red Rock Canyon (talk
  ) 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that gunshot effects are MEDRS. But even if they are, this is at the bottom of that advisory page: "If WP:MEDRS can be found to support the information, and it is relevant and encyclopedic, then ideally provide a better source yourself. If you cannot find an appropriate source but the material seems accurate, consider adding a ^[medical citation needed] tag." My interpretation would be to include that citation at the end, if we confirm it's MEDRS, and then have the pros layer in the sources listed above by Jytdog, replacing it.Farcaster (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• No...but The question is reliable for what? A number of other editors have hit on many of the issues here. When it comes to the actual study of the trauma we have actual medical sources we can draw on. When it comes to the opinions of the surgeons who were questioned, yes, the article should reliably convey their opinions. How and where this source would makes sense in use? That's a big question. It's not specific or methodical. The opinions are of medical professionals but it's not clear they have the background information or expertise needed to make the assessments (this projectile fired from this barrel does this harm). As was previously mentioned the reported information was anecdotal and was packaged in a way that was advocating a position. So it may be reliable in some cases but not in general. Springee (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

*Yes Reliable Source and *Yes is should be included The NYT may bit be the best source, but wounding capabilities are (at least in part) are a reason these weapons have been chosen by the military (indeed have often been a marketing ploy, as in their ability to stop elephants, if the manufacturers consider to ability to inflict injuries notable why should we not?).Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Was it Groundhog Day, Slatersteven? :) Deja vu.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Pedantic No. The way "exponentially" is used in the cited passage shows that its author was not a scientist. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether the author is a scientist or not is irrelevant. Further, the formula for kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 (one-half mass x square of the velocity). So if the bullet travels twice as fast, other things equal, it imparts four times as much energy. That is exponential.Farcaster (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you crazy or trying to be funny? If you don't know the difference between quadratic and exponential, go back to primary school. 2$2=4, depending on the operation the $ represents could apply equally well to linear, quadratic, exponential or random. Exponential energy would mean something like 0.5m2^v (which is wrong!). For a constant mass of projectile, by the time we are contemplating quadruple instead of double the velocity, we would have 2^5=32 vs 5^2=25. By the time we are looking at supersonic speeds the slope is huge, so don't come telling us it is all a matter of scientific pickyness. JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• No: for two reasons.

[1]

WP:MEDPOP

.

[2] The conclusion that the NYT author came to is obviously wrong. The Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger's version of the AR-15, each chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition and each with the same barrel length, have the same muzzle velocity and ballistics when shooting the same ammunition. Yet the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you wrote the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict. Where in the article does it say that? From what I read, the comparisons to other guns are to handguns, plus a brief mention of shotguns. —DIYeditor , same question to you. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NYT: "Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them."

False by omission or grossly misleading in two ways:

1. This is a characteristic of hunting rifles in .223 as well.
2. This is not necessarily a characteristic of the most common assault rifle round, the 7.62x39, which some AR-15s fire.

The NYT article is trying to make it sound like this is in particular a concern with assault-style rifles or with the AR-15, both of which are false. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You (Waleswatcher) actually read an article that starts out with "perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them" and somehow came to the conclusion that the source didn't claim that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict? Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a

WP:CIR problem. --Guy Macon (talk

) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It quite clearly doesn't claim that. It doesn't even imply it. What it does say is that of the gunshot wounds commonly seen by these surgeons, those inflicted by assault-style rifles are by far the worst. Quite possibly if lots of people were getting shot by high-powered hunting rifles instead of handguns, that wouldn't be the case. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So as long as good old "foot wide exit wounds" NYT heard it from some MD, you would be fine with a Wikipedia article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Toyotas cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Toyota-related pages? Even if we documented that individual Toyotas and Nissans exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that blue Toyotas cause more damage than bicycles? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders? No one doubts that being hit by a 100KPH blue Toyota driven by a black who voted for Sanders will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If the NYT asked a trauma surgeon he would have to agree agree that the statement is technically accurate.

Re your "Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a

WP:CIR problem." comment, (Personal attack removed

).

BTW, I would love to hear your theory on how it is, exactly, that a trauma surgeon knows that a gunshot victim was shot with one type of rifle instead on another type of rifle that creates identical wounds? Do they include the rile on the gurney? Are there patients bleeding out because the surgeon hasn't received a copy of the police report? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The source is comparing the weapons which are actually used in mass shootings, not ones that could have been but weren't. (And yes, if a bicycle attack epidemic was replaced by a string of attacks by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders driving blue Toyotas, reliable sources would surely talk about the deadliness of Toyotas compared to bicycles as well as the reasons for this oddly specific trend, regardless of whether the factors are internal or external to Toyota, blacks or Bernie Sanders. The related Wikipedia articles would be updated to reflect this coverage. Nissans have nothing to do with it.) –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The attempt by those who wish to ban Toyotas to introduce such a claim into Toyota articles but not Nissan articles when reliable academic sources show no difference between Toyotas and Nissans does have something to do with it. Editors who attempt to drag in the bogus anti-Toyota claims by comparing Toyotas (but not Nissans) with bicycles do have something to do with it.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but science already has an answer to the mass shootings question. See The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines also, Before the first assault weapon laws were enacted in the 1990s, assault weapons were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all crimes that involved injuries to the victim. So if you want to argue percentage of crimes, you should argue for banning handguns. If you want to argue severity of wounds, you should argue for banning shotguns. If you want to argue bullet velocity, you should advocate banning all guns that fire certain cartridges (for example, banning all that fire 7.62x39 NATO while allowing all that fire .22 long rifle) What you don't want to do is to advocate banning certain guns based upon irrelevant characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• No per Guy Macon above, simply and clearly explained. I was on the fence but I think he sums it up. This type of information (from a RS) belongs in
  5.56x45 NATO
  where there is already a section about it, and probably in articles about weapons which are chambered for that round. This NYT article is not a reliable source for this topic and is anecdotal rather than scientific. It is misleading as well in characterizing this as a quality of the AR-15 when other rifles, even bolt-action hunting rifles, are chambered for the same round.

Sorry for equivocating. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• No per prior. Also, where the user is trying to put this source is not the right place. This article is about a specific type of firearm/bullet. If anything, at the very least that would be something to put on the page for that type of rifle. Reb1981 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reb1981 Could you please clarify your comment? The proposal is to put this text on (as you said) "the page for that type of rifle". The NYT article and text in question is about assault rifles and specifically mentions the M-16 and AR-15. So you said "No" but your text says "yes."Farcaster (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes the New York Times is reliable for the proposed text. The material is properly attributed to medical professionals interviewed by a highly-reliable source. The claims are not extraordinary, although the word "exponentially" is somewhat vague. The first paragraph of
  AR-15 style rifle would ever be used as a source for health information by any non-insane person. Also, the unqualified original research by some of the opposers who are attempting to refute what is in a reliable source should have no bearing on the outcome of this poll. I would support A Quest For Knowledge's version also.- MrX
  🖋 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a good thing it's not up to you to evaluate the outcome of this, pointing out obvious factual errors isn't "unqualified original research"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinions from anonymous people on the internet are not facts. There is a reason why we cite sources, and not what editors think they know.- MrX 🖋 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The claims that wounds depend on the ammunition and that

AR-15 style rifles and assault weapons can be had in many different calibers are of course easily sourced, so no, it's not original research. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruger AR-556 40.9 cm Ranch Rifle 46.99, so no they do not have the same barrel length.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@

Ruger Ranch Rifle can be had with barrel lengths from 13" to 22" (even though 16" is minimum legal barrel length for civilians AFAIK), so yes, both of those rifles can be had with the exact same barrel length. You have double-!voted here, BTW, so when are you going to strike your extra vote? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact they come if different barrel lengths means we would need to see what the comparable MV are. So can we have the MV's of the 16.12 inch barrels for both guns (sourced of course)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

AR-556 16.10", Mini-14 (i.e. Ranch Rifle), 16.12". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I know they both exist, I want to know what the MV is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If both use the same ammunition from the same manufacturing batch the muzzle velocity is of course identical. Manufacturers can't give a "fixed" muzzle velocity since it depends on which ammunition is being used (bullet weight, propellant type, propellant quantity etc). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So then neither can eds on Wikipedia, which I think was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Que? Think again, but do it right this time. If two firearms are chambered for the same cartridge, have the same barrel length and fire the same ammunition their muzzle velocity will be identical, but what that muzzle velocity will be depends on which ammunition they use (bulletweight, propellant type, propellant quantity). There's a wide range of ammunition available for 5.56x45mm, with different muzzle velocity for a given barrel length for each of them, which is why muzzle velocity is given by ammunition manufacturers, not rifle manufacturers... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Editor Slatersteven no disrespect meant. Are you sure you understand what you are replying to? Editor Tom is saying (what is common knowledge) gun manufacturers do not give velocities for there guns. Ammo manufacturers do give velocities and will state barrel length they tested for this velocity. The speed is determined by the ammo and barrel, not the gun as a whole or type of gun. Velocities can vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer and the same exact ammo can vary from box to box. These issues are why I made the statement that perhaps editors were not fully understanding this content fully. Not trying to be mean or basing my vote by, just some constructive criticism trying to resolve this issue -72bikers (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Re: your claim that the Ruger AR-15 and Ruger Ranch Rifle Ruger do not have the same barrel length, first of all, the fact that (like most rifles) both are available in a variety of barrel lengths and that some of the available barrel lengths match up is easily verifiable. Second, your point is irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the dubious claim that all 5.56×45mm NATO assault rifles have significantly longer/shorter barrel lengths than all conventional 5.56×45mm wooden-stock rifles. It's as if I had pointed out the stupidity of some ER doctor claiming that (based of a tiny sample) Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets and you responded by saying that the Ford Mustang and the Chevrolet Bolt have different vehicle weights and different top speeds. That's true, but has zero relevance to the question of whether Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets, and it is certainly possible to pick a Ford and a Chevrolet that weight roughly the same. If a Ford and a Chevy are the same weight, go the same speed, and have essentially the same front end, then the wounds they make when hitting a pedestrian are the same. This is true even if there exists an organized political movement to demonize Fords and not Chevrolets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The NYT may be a RS, but that doesn't make everything they print correct or usable (Jayson Blair anyone?). In this case, some doctors gave anecdotal information, not presenting the results of actual studies. If this was all as correct as it is presented, I wonder why the US military is looking at going to a larger caliber rifle? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The NYT article for the specific text listed. In general the NYT is a reliable sources but in this situation they are not. As cited all over better sources are available for this information, so purpose those instead. No comment on the text in general since that is not he purpose of this board. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion for the three articles listed, per
  WP:DUE. Interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience is not anecdotal evidence. In any case, other sources listed in this discussion support these conclusions. --K.e.coffman (talk
  ) 18:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, yes, it it anecdotal. No matter what their experience is or where they got it, when they are answering based on their experience, that is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. Can you explain how basing it on personal experience is NOT anecdotal? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it's called "expert opinion". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

They are experts in medicine. No dispute there. But when their opinion is based on their own experiences, not through actual study, it's anecdotal. Do you even know what the word means? "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation" They are reporting their own observations. It's the very definition of it. Or you just know more than the dictionary? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's expert opinion. Do you even know what these words mean? And please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The old classic: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W and Niteshift36, I might point out that C.J. Chivers (one of the two authors of the article) is a former Army captain who served in the first Gulf War, and is the author of a book called "The Gun", about the AK-47. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: What has being a former military officer got to do with anything?. This is about being an expert on the characteristics of wounds caused by being hit by a bullet from a certain type of firearms, not about being an expert on how to pull the trigger. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC) (If being a former military officer automatically made someone an expert on wound characteristics I'd be an expert on this too...)

• No. The source is unreliable, whether NY Times or Captain Marvel comics or self-styled "expert opinion". The reporter either is quoting unreliable sources without comprehension, or has mutilated a reliable source by lack of comprehension of technical terms. For example, the effect of a bullet's velocity on the wound is not exponential in any useful sense, except perhaps "lots and lots and lots". WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Ripley's Believe it or not. The effect of the relative velocity of a bullet, on the form and scale of the wound it causes, is related to many variables apart from energy, and besides, the energy in a moving projectile is kinetic, which rises quadratically with velocity, not exponentially. Is that the sort of garbage we are to be retailing? I hope' not! 04:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC) JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@JonRichfield Please look up the definition of exponential, then update your comment.Farcaster (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farcaster OK, I looked it up, just to please you, please note, so don' t say I never do anything for you. Now what part of my comment did you think needed updating? What did you think it meant? JonRichfield (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, for starters exponentially includes "quadratically" and other powers. The source doesn't say energy is the only factor, simply that it's a key factor. Just thought you should know your premise is almost entirely disconnected from your conclusion.Farcaster (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Qualified support the NYT is an acceptable source for these interviews, but better context is needed than what is provided in the quote and consensus would be needed at a particular article to include such an extensive quote. As noted by various other editors, the cosmetic and rate-of-fire characteristics of a semi-auto rifle do not affect the terminal ballistics of each bullet. This is an easily sourced observation, and any claims to the contrary need to meet
  WP:REDFLAG. Further, the article is comparing the terminal ballistics of intermediate cartridges to the affects of (relatively common) pistol rounds - full-power rifle rounds do not appear to be considered at all. Finally, this is RSN - we can assess reliability, but not whether specific content should be included at a particular article. That should be determined, considering other policies and guidelines as well, at the article talk page. For example, here the content was contested on the grounds of editorial consensus and relevance, neither of which are going to be reversed by a discussion here. VQuakr (talk
  ) 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - I would prefer the experts be cited directly, but if those sources aren't available, this is acceptable. The phrase "exponentially greater" is being used in a lay sense of simply meaning "a lot larger"; a scientific assessment (that a 3x velocity means a 9x increase in energy) would be better than directly quoting that sentence.
  π, ν
  ) 19:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A 3x increase in velocity meaning a 9x increase in energy is technically true, but if you're comparing two different types of weapon it's true only if the bullets weigh the same (½x bullet weight x velocity squared), which they don't if you compare an AR-15 to a handgun, since handgun bullets are much heavier than bullets used in 5.56x45mm ammo (twice the weight if it's the most common 9mm ammo, 4x the weight if it's the most common .45ACP ammo...). If you compare with a 9x19mm handgun it's also not 3x the velocity since a typical muzzle velocity for that caliber is ~1,200ft/s with a 124 gr bullet... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support within limits - from my reading, the source is saying that wounds from rifles like the AR-15 and M16 are more severe than more common (for civilians) handguns and shotgun wounds, which seems fine and isn't contradicted by anything I can find. It's true that some conventional rifles might cause even more severe wounds than an AR-15, but the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America so it gets more coverage. By the same token: SUVs pose more danger to pedestrians compared to a standard sized sedan. Ceteris paribus, getting run over by a tank is worse than either, but it's also far more rare so it receives less comment. Nblund ^talk 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• So you would be fine with an article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Fords cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Ford pages? Even if we documented that individual Fords and Chevrolets exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that white Fords cause more damage than bicycles? How about white Fords driven by women? How about white Fords driven by women who voted for Hillary? No one doubts that being hit by a 100MPH white Ford driven by a women who voted for Hillary will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If I asked a trauma surgeon he would agree that the statement is technically accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that depends on the scenario - did white Ford trucks become the most popular trucks in America after previously being banned? And have they become the preferred truck for people committing large scale vehicular homicide? If either is true, then yes, it would probably make sense to comment on how their relative size and weight makes them deadlier than smaller sedans and bicycles that were previously more common. Nblund ^talk 15:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Of course this isn't a reliable source because the NYT has openly taken a political position on gun control in general and assault rifles specifically. As such the information contained within these articles, which was written by two reporters, has to be considered a POV given by somebody who is not an authority on the subject. Since the article is POV by nature and written by somebody who isn't an authority on the issue, how can it be utilized in Wikipedia without making the article POV? Syr74 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, taking a position doesn't make a source unreliable. For example, the Congressional Budget Office takes the position that tax cuts increase deficits relative to a baseline without those tax cuts, and their information is considered unbiased and definitive on the subject. Second, in terms of NPOV, from the Wikipedia NPOV page: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."Farcaster (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether the NYT article is a reliable source for the proposed text or not (which is why this is called the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard"...). Whether the addition violates

WP:UNDUE) or not, and should be balanced by addition of other material or not included at all, is the next step, but such discussions take place on each article. Either after a discussion at RSN is over or, as in this case (since those discussions are already taking place there), in parallel with this discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that a relevant source can be a biased source, but goes on to suggest that such a source would contain reliable and pertinent information. The New York Times has been embroiled in several scandals within just the 21st century that have damaged the reputation of the paper, many of which have led to retractions and omissions including the New York Times citing that, at one point, their reporting was factually biased due to 'institutional issues'. That is literally an admission that lying to push a viewpoint had become an accepted tactic of leadership. This included the termination of a prominent reporter at the paper who, according to the paper, distorted facts over the course of several years and an admission that the paper had been less than honest during reporting up to and during the Global War on Terror/Iraq War. The issue isn't just that they are biased but, rather, that they have a relatively recent track record of allowing that bias to lead them to go so far as to be dishonest to push a political view point. As such, reliability ought to be questioned. Syr74 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I would direct you to

Wikipedia:NEWSORG which states: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."Farcaster (talk

) 04:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Direct away, but you aren't addressing the issue I brought up. My problem here isn't one of opinion vs fact, rather my issue is with the fact that the New York Times itself has, on multiple occasions, stated that items published in their paper have been untrue and this in relatively recent history. A lie is not an opinion, and absolutely speaks to reliability. If the paper can't police their own reporters and editors reliability then they cannot be considered reliable. Syr74 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, none -

"Is the New York Times a reliable source for bullet wound characteristics?" - No That's a bit mis-stated and a mis-quoted bit here but being literal no, NYT is not an expert in medicine or ballistics. They have some

WP:NEWSORG

ability to be RS for statements OF others, but they cannot judge among statements and the text in question did not attribute the words as being those solely of Dr. Schreiber. The two journalists seem to have relevant background, and the Doctor apparently has some battlefield wound experience -- but none apparent regarding AR-15, and obviously not expert in ballistics which is what the article context is making statements about. As others noted, incorrect statements. This text is talking speed which is a factor from cartridge and barrel length and not what 'style' the barrel is mounted in. So you'd see non-'military' rifles better than some models of AR-15 with identical cartridges, and some handguns over 2000fps but not as lethal as 'slow' but big impact of a 44 magnum or 50 S&W.

"Which article(s), if any, should this be included in?" None. Even if restated to just military and noting just Dr. Schreiber -- there is no particular reason to put his particular words filtered thru NYT and then WP as something authritative or famous.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• No. Newspapers are RS for news. Technical detail filtered thru journalists often turns into nonsense. If it were an direct interview with a recognized expert, whose words were a direct unedited non-cherry-picked speech, we could have attributed some technical info the expert, but never to the NYT.
  talk
  ) 17:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guy Macon and practically every oppose !vote so far that makes the case for inaccuracy and anecdotal rather than facts. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• On the narrow point of RS: NYT is of course reliable for claiming to interview people, for accurately reporting those interviews, and selecting reasonably qualified experts. As for the expert quotes, if we cut through the wikilawyering and POV-wars, the quotes in isolation shouldn't be particularly controversial. They are doctors (half military doctors) describing cases they have treated, they basically say heavy weapons can and often do create more severe wounds than handguns, and they explain why. However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles. I would not be surprised to see individuals on either or both sides of this battle heading towards a topic ban. Alsee (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee: "However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles" Could you clarify what you mean by this? –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

dlthewave on one side some pro-gun editors are battling it with bogus arguments, and on the other side the content itself is screams anti-gun motives. Strong partisan views tends to lead to both poor arguments and poor content. The content is practically all quotation, from a piece who's entire theme is how "ghastly" shootings are. If anyone wants to present an emotive case on either side of gun-control/gun-rights, take it to an article gun on the controversy. The content could fit there. Alsee (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Content about how devastating assault rifle and assault weapon wounds are is simply factual. That is in fact why the weapons were developed. The more scientific journals support what the NYT is saying, as several editors and one admin have pointed out. Now if I added photos or testimonials describing children roughly cut in half as they were at Sandy Hook, then your point might have merit, although I think lacking that content is probably an omission as well. Those photos could be balanced by the pro-gun group showing smiling teenagers at the shooting range with their assault weapons.Farcaster (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, specifically to the question asked (is the NYT reliable for this use), but I strongly oppose using this text in any of the proposed articles. The NYT is not a gun-focused publication, and without gun experts to consult, they made the rather basic mistake of not understanding that those wounds are characteristic of the round being fired by assault weapons. This same round, be it a 5.56 or a 7.62 or even a 6.8 is a round a large number of hunting rifles and the occasional handgun or PDW are also chambered for.

tl;dr: The NYT is technically correct with this piece and generally reliable, but this piece strongly implies that only assault rifles cause these wounds, which is trivially wrong.

Oh, and I forget who suggested that shotguns cause worse wounds, but I've known people shot by both: You can't just compare wounds at 10 meters. There's a huge difference between what 12ga 00 buckshot will do to you at 15 meters vs what it will do at 150 meters. Meanwhile, a 5.56x45mm will do pretty much the same thing to you, whether you're at 1 meter, 100 meters or 400 meters. I can tell you right now exactly what a 12ga slug will do at anything past ~25 meters: miss. And that's assuming no-one uses 28ga or .410 shotguns, or rock salt, or bean bags... It's an interesting point, but not one likely to get you far.

Tell me all about it.

15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Question #2 is off topic for this noticeboard as phrased and should be stricken. It combines consideration of DUE weight and NPOV with reliable sourcing. If it were to remain here it should ask whether it is a RS for particular articles, instead it begs for an extended discussion on a number of topics. Also not phrased in a simple manner per RfC instructions because it fails to provide any background - totally open discussion would be instigated. Since the RfC has already started and there are responses, the malformed question #2 should simply be removed from consideration here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The two main concerns are "The NY Times article is not a reliable source, period" and "The source isn't talking about the topic of this article, but you might try adding it somewhere else." In fact you've admitted to using the latter argument to make Farcaster someone else's problem by sending them to another article where you believe their edit will be rejected, when you actually believed it would be more relevant to a third article. I'm hoping to "kill two birds with one stone" and avoid sending Farcaster on another Fool's errand. My intent was to determine which article the source is about, since it mentions several different models and we don't have a Military-style rifle article.

I agree that ...whether it is a RS for particular articles is a better way to phrase it. Perhaps If the statement source is found to be reliably sourced reliable, which article(s) (if any) should it be added to is it a reliable source for? would be a better question. –dlthewave ☎ 00:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be the right way to handle it. And maybe list it as "which of the following articles" and list them with the RFC question because I originally missed the line below the text which listed the articles. Maybe it's just my problem but it seems like the formatting was a little confusing. My main point was to clarify that a finding of "reliable source" here is not a definitive answer on whether to include it. As a note, I did not think I was sending Farcaster on a fool's errand in the sense that the NYT article was not fit for the

AR-15 article, I think it probably is, I only meant that the discussion is more appropriate there. I do think he would run into the same degree of reaction against it there but I don't at this point agree with that reaction. —DIYeditor (talk

) 00:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me further say, I was confused a bit by the "proposed text" being included when the survey questions were not about the proposed text. I don't think we can address the proposed text here except as far as to say if it is based on the RS correctly - and that would be a question #3. I focused mainly on the two questions as they were worded, which is really what an RfC is supposed to be, and I think we have been somewhat talking at cross purposes because of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why NYT (yes, a gold-standard for journalism, but this is not a journalism issue) - and not actual journals and serious publications? e.g. [51], [52] (yes a presentation, but their paper is probably interesting and they have results in a nice chart), [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58].Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe that's not really the source of the dispute. The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how "perfect" the source is. People who don't see it as a political issue may be a little confused about why this isn't standard information for all articles about firearms. What happens to the target is relevant even if your context is purely subsistence hunting. You can't eat pink mist (a bullet that shreds isn't so handy if you want to eat squirrel meat), but you do need a bullet that hits with enough force to kill your next meal. But here, I think that the complaints about the source quality are just the first step in complaining about whether the information belongs in the article at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@

5.56x45mm). Where there's no need for the NYT article since that information in many/most cases already exists in those articles... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from a

WP:MEDRS perspective as well as from a non-US-centric perspective. I think it would be interesting if we quantified the "deadliness" of assault rifles (which, BTW, in what I skimmed through some of the links above regarding the M-16/AR-15 has actually more to do with the bullet breaking up/fragmenting in the body and less with velocity) vs. other types of guns - but I really do not think that the motivation of the really RECNETISM (in terms of how "hot" a topic this is) of gun control vs. assault-like guns due to school shootings should be the motivating factor.Icewhiz (talk

) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Tom, if the problem is "doesn't belong in those articles", then I'm correct: The actual problem is not about whether the source is reliable for the claims being made. The actual problem is that some editors don't want this information in these articles at all. If you personally believe that it belongs in another article, then of course please feel free to copy it there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head WhatamIdoing; I think that is the real issue here. The NRA caucus doesn't want this sort of graphic description of what these rifles actually do seeing the light of day.Farcaster (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable assigning political views to any editor. I agree with you that this dispute really belongs at

WP:NPOVN instead of RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 04:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, the deadliness of assault rifles vs. other types of guns has already been established. The answer is "identical if the cartridge and barrel length are the same". BTW, at the range at which most shootings occur, a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 Buckshot (twenty four 1/4-inch lead balls traveling at about 1,200 feet per second) is far more deadly than any assault rifle. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment whether NYT is generally regarded as RS is irrelevant. If a particular source publishes patently illiterate or innumerate garbage, it certainly is not a reliable source in that context at least. The quote's source is nonsensical in terms of school physics, never mind real-world wound ballistic technicalities, so it is not merely unreliable but wrong. No matter how reliably the report uncritically quotes nonsense, that does not make it reliable. If it is not reliable for this article, that does not make it reliable in any other article whatsoever, politically slanted or not, unless perhaps as a horrible example in an article on lousy reporting. JonRichfield (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

To date, 18 no 10 yes and 2 maybes. -72bikers (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on this RFC

Can anyone clarify (or expound on above comments of possible sanctions) why this is not

assuming

it is unintentional? How is this not advertising in different places "...in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." as opposed to an extenuating circumstance of "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable...". My concern is more of the fact that there were ongoing discussions and it seems that article consensus on those individual articles were against the inclusion of a particular source. I just glanced over things so if this is not the case please enlighten me:

• 1. Talk:Assault rifle#Wound characteristics: Ended by listing here.
  2. Talk:Assault_weapon#Wound_characteristics: Ended by listing here and,
  3. Talk:AR-15 style rifle#Wound_characteristics
     .

due weight, another. If this is not forum shopping then what exactly is so considered. If it is considered forum shopping, lacking some exception, then this needs to be closed as a waste of time and possible referred to, and looked at, by an admin not only for closing this as well as the others but for possible warnings or sanctions to any involved as disrupting Wikipedia

.

If for some reason, that I am not aware of, this has become a

normal process of what I consider Wikipedia:Gaming the system by circumventing or attempting to circumventing policy then a discussion needs to take at Wikipedia:Consensus to modify the "rules". Otr500 (talk

) 16:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is by definition
  forum shopping--RAF910 (talk
  ) 18:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

When NYT and Merriam-Webster alternate definitions about a subject are excluded from Wikipedia articles on that subject, we have a serious problem that meant we needed to bring in some admins. There's an aggressive group of pro-gun editors preventing legitimate content. Other editors probably got tired of putting up with their bullying and have gone elsewhere from the article pages, but they jumped in right away when this RfC was posted. So far, I've had several edits reverted such as: a) NYT article with interviews with trauma surgeons explaining the wound characteristics of assault rifles and assault weapons; b) NYT article explaining that since soldiers are trained to fire assault rifles on semi-auto most of the time, the technical distinctions between assault rifles and civilian variation assault weapons are limited in practice (i.e., civilians have infantry weaponry, especially when one considers the legality of bump stocks); and c) A Merriam-Webster alternate definition of an assault rifle that included the civilian variant. Admin MastCell explained just how weak the pro-gun editor arguments are. I'm waiting for a couple more admins to weigh in and shut that out-of-control group down.Farcaster (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

talk

) 04:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That was intended as an attack on your argument, not ad hominem.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure about "alternate definitions" in one medium, or what an admin can weigh in on concerning policies and guidelines some editors might have broken, but according to US law and sources on the internet the definition of an "assault rifle" would have to include "select fire". The former "legal" definition would have included the ability to hold a certain number in the magazine. Using the extremely broad term "assault style", other than in looks, would need some disambiguation. Otr500 (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the challenges in this space is too many people trying to substitute their gun "expertise" for verifiable facts. M-W is a credible source (the best-selling English language dictionary according to sources) and states in its "Assault Rifle" definition: "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire." There are sections in both the "Assault rifle" and "Assault weapon" articles where this text could appropriately go, but it was merely excluded.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I should add that the Heritage American Dictionary also defines assault rifle as: "A rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat. 2. An assault weapon having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock." The Oxford dictionary is more aligned with the military definition: "A lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically." The key point of the NYT article b) above is that the distinction is mostly irrelevant in practice. The definitions get even more blurry when you factor in bump stocks. This is a key insight missing from the Wikipedia articles.Farcaster (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your "RfC on this RfC" I should add that much of the discussion here was held prior to discussion on the talk pages.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that you are very biased and wanting to include material against consensus in four places so to me your editing preferences are as bad as those you claim are conspiracy NRA editors. This has been forum shopped four times now and you have boldly advertised that you are shopping for admins that will agree with you so "I" am asking you to stop this before, as mentioned by an editor above, sanctions are handed out that might include some admin you drag into this. I looked at the reference as an editor for Wikipedia not anything else. I do not have the agenda against guns you have exhibed, have never been an NRA member, and can look at this with neutrality. Your comments show that is not so from your side. I also want to inform you and any admin "you find" that consensus in four places can exclude a particular source or particular material by such majority consensus. The case is not "if" the source is reliable but if it is reliable for particular context and in this particular place. I have no ax to grind on any of this including any political agenda. From a neutrality point of view I can also appreciate any editor with an opposing view for balance but having been thrown into some extremist NRA camp by your comments is insulting. Otr500 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your threats or the ad hominem attack. As you can clearly see, this RfC was begun early in the process well before any consensus was reached on the talk pages. Whether I have a particular view or not is irrelevant; my proposed edits are from the NYT (a reliable source by any definition) and the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Please add your vote above and we'll see where you stand.Farcaster (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That is pretty comical. "Help! A bunch of NRA memberS ARE ATTACKING ME because I am running all over Wikipedia to get a source included, and I !voted different from them (so they must be NRA gun nuts right?), and advertise I am polling for admin assistance". I have been looking at this all the way around and what I see is you having to comment on just about every !vote on a crusade. "IF" I was at a point to "threaten" you I would have simply reported you. I actually gave you a polite warning that what I have seen you do "IS attacking" other editors and asking you to stop. Now! IF you feel I am attacking you or threatening you then you don't worry about if or when I !vote but report me and we can see how my request for you to stop attacking editors that !vote opposite you works out. Since I do not have a history of doing such a thing maybe you can go through four ANI's to find an admin to help. OH! I really don't care which of the four RFC's were started first or if one or more editors might not consider this

vote stacking, the other RFC's are still open, you or anyone else not an admin-- and I would still think it improper to jump around discussions didn't force a move (that I saw), and I didn't see a request for closing just--- OH! "this is also going on somewhere else because local consensus is no longer important" is not good reasoning. This means it is YOUR opinion that discussions in the other locations are in fact "too close to call so a "no consensus" allowing your agenda to be spread around. This does not grant a pass to circumvent policies and guidelines. That is "my personal opinion at this point and we are still having multiple RFC's ongoing at the same time----still. I am sure you can start a fifth if you want to though. It is hard for me to even see what is what so someone request a closing at the other shopping centers and then this can be reconsidered. Otr500 (talk

) 09:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

We'll, I'm actually trying to get several edits made from multiple sources across multiple articles, all of which have run into resistance from the same group of editors. So far, 4 of 5 dictionaries that I've looked at include civilian assault rifle variants in the assault rifle definition, but that is not enough to get that into the assault rifle article, according to one editor on that page, since he knows better than those definitions (among other laughable arguments). Then of course we have the NYT explaining that the difference between assault rifles and assault weapons is irrelevant in practice, as soldiers are trained to fire semi-automatic in most cases. That's before we even talk about the legality of bump stocks. That also apparently is unworthy of mention on either the assault rifle or assault weapon article. And finally, the subject on this discussion, the effects of these weapons, as described by five trauma surgeons to the NYT. In no case was a good faith effort made by these opposing editors to move, modify, or contradict these sources, choosing instead to revert entirely. That's why we're here, and that's what you should be concerned about, not "Wikilawyering" some garbage about "opinion shopping." Am I really supposed to fight say 7 different talk page battles simultaneously against an organized group making invalid arguments, as Admin MastCell explained so well? This was a venue to bring in more editors to the debate, which is what I hope Wikipedia is for. And if you looked at this as carefully as you say you did (since you by your own admission did not before your initial post) you'll see this board was suggested by another person, who created this discussion in a good faith effort to help get this resolved in one place rather than several. And of course the usual suspects have already argued even this board is non-binding.Farcaster (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment on the 4 of 5 dictionary definition claim. First, dictionaries are not expert sources. If the dictionary definition conflicts with expert sources we use the expert source. The definitions you are trying to use are generally the secondary definitions for the entry. I would assume the dictionaries are following the loose usage we see in the media (like calling a facial tissue a Kleenex, in proper usage Kleenex is a brand, not a facial tissue). Second, of the 4 secondary definitions, two are nonsensical. For those who care, I explain the issues here [[59]]. In the mean time I think we should stop beating this dead horse. Springee (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've proposed some simple text on the assault rifle page to reflect the majority of dictionary entries covering civilian models. Apparently, there are pro-gun groups that found the M-W change threatening, a controversy that may also be worth covering.Farcaster (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Next steps

So editor Thomas.W has made it clear on my talk page this content will never see the light of day on these articles, and that the straw poll is not binding. What are the next steps? The most reasonable action based on the discussion thus far is either: 1) Include as is with a medical tag, perhaps with some copy edits; 2) Include the academic sources mentioned by Jytdog either along with it or instead of it.Farcaster (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That is of course not what I wrote, just Farcaster's usual deliberate misrepresentation of things. What I wrote was that it is up to editors on each of the articles that

WP:UNDUE and other policies... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not a straw poll is binding (if the consensus from the straw poll is clear and someone wishes to ignore that consensus, I will be happy to post an RfC, which is binding),

WP:MEDPOP are already binding. --Guy Macon (talk

) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the above is an RfC. However, as is always the case, consensus can change and RfCs are never truly binding. Springee (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Stupid mistake. I saw "straw poll" and had a brain fart. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.)

I believe that you are incorrect about RfCs not being binding. According to

WP:CONEXCEPT applies), the result of an RfC is binding. And of course you can challenge the result if you believe that the closing summary got it wrong. --Guy Macon (talk

) 16:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RfCs are binding, but AFAIK RSN only decides on whether a particular source is reliable or not, not on whether a certain personal interpretation of what that source source says (which the proposed text is, see the long discussion above) can be included in specific articles or not, that should be decided through consensus on the articles, taking all other relevant policies into consideration. As can be seen in the discussion above the NYT article in question is also not seen as MEDRS-compliant. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context (emphasis mine). The RSN instructions state that the specific statement in question is to be included in the initial post.

In other words, we discuss whether or not the source reliably supports a specific statement in a certain context, not just the overall reliability of the source itself. In this case we're discussing whether the source supports the proposed text in the context of a certain category of weapon, type of ammunition or model of rifle. –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No RfCs are NOT binding which is why other forms of DR may continue even after an RfC.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

• Some people seem to think that the discussion has been "won" by those who want to include the material, but a quick count seems to indicate that those who oppose inclusion are at least equal in number to those who support inclusion, those who oppose also bring up serious questions about using the NYT as a source for something that would normally require a MEDRS-compliant source. So this aint over yet... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there's a lot of confusion about

PMID 19644779

states, among other things:

... which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article. The review goes on to talk about yaw etc. There are a number of other scholarly sources saying, in essence, exactly what the Times piece says, but I'd like some of the involved editors from this thread, who feel that the Times is an unreliable source, to do the work of finding them.

Putting on my administrative hat, I'm concerned to see a number of frankly bizarre and off-base comments in this extended thread; people are arguing that the Times is unreliable because it contains "anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable", because it "has an axe to grind", because the Times has intentionally misrepresented the quoted trauma surgeons (no evidence is presented for this rather startling accusation), because the quoted trauma surgeons apparently don't have enough case volume to qualify as experts (according to a random Wikipedian), because of some gunsplaining nonsense ("It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge" [sic]), and so on. It should go without saying that not only are these invalid objections, but they are well outside the realm of reasonable policy-based discussion. Moreover, as WhatamIdoing has noted, the dynamic at play in this thread is concerning: "The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how 'perfect' the source is."

If these sorts of arguments are relied upon to exclude content, or to attempt to disqualify obviously reliable sources, that may constitute tendentious and disruptive editing and may become an issue for administrative attention. I guess this is as good a place as any to notify, or remind, thread participants that gun-control-related articles remain under

standard discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk

19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@

AR-15 style rifle and Assault weapon), even though the information is valid for only a subset of each type, without telling readers that the information isn't valid for all weapons of each type. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, a helpful explanation of the invalid arguments on the "No/Exclude" side.Farcaster (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a attempt to cheery-pick issues and not address legitimate concerns. The

WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms , or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."-72bikers (talk

) 21:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So an administrator spoke and explained in detail why most of the "No/exclude" votes are invalid. So who is going to include the text? Or do we need another administrator?Farcaster (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's almost unbelievable how little you know about how things work here, considering your account was created ten years ago. The words/opinions of administrators carry no extra weight in discussions, but are equal to those of peon editors. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

By my count it is 8 to include and 14 to not. That is almost a 2 to 1 for no inclusion in the proposed articles. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

At the time of this count, it's 14 to "exclude" the content, 12 to "include", and 2 participants (MastCell and Thewellman) with no conclusion offered. However, dropping invalid arguments (e.g., votes to "exclude" due to Anecdotal, Not RS, MEDRS, and "I know better than the NYT"), at least 12 of the 14 "exclude" votes would carry no weight. This puts us at +10 (12-2) in favor of adding.Farcaster (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bikers, this RFC only opened a few days ago. It is way too soon to be counting up !votes, and declaring a “winner”. The ratio may well change as the RFC continues (not predicting that it will, just warning that it might... I have seen it happen in the past). Have some patience. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Biker's comment was probably a reply to Farcaster's comment yesterday morning (US time), declaring "victory" for the include-side... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

obviously that was too soon as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was not trying to draw any conclusion. As editor Tom explained, just a response to Farcaster-72bikers (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the "No" votes have been dismissed. Some argued the NYT was not a reliable source, those count as zero. Some argued MEDRS, that was dismissed, those count as zero. Some argued their own expertise in place of the NYT, those count as zero. Not even close. Again, what's the next step?Farcaster (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farcaster: No, there are no !votes that have been dismissed. People expressing personal opinions about the !votes of others does not automatically lead to those !votes being dismissed, regardless of if the person who expresses that opinion is an admin or not. It's up to whoever closes this discussion (which should be an uninvolved admin since this is a discussion about contentious edits on articles that are under discretionary sanctions) to evaluate the consensus based on Wikipedia policy. Making it highly unlikely that there will be any mass dismissal of !votes here. And please note that there are admins on both the no-side and the yes-side here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidently I need to clarify my role here. It is not my place to "dismiss" specific comments, and I am not going to close this thread with any sort of verdict. My opinion on the content question itself carries no more weight than anyone else's. If this thread is formally closed by an admin, then the closing admin will make a determination about whether to disregard specific !votes. My point is pretty simple: if editors are relying on flagrantly absurd or inappropriate rationales to stonewall or exclude material, anywhere in this topic area, then I will handle that as tendentious/disruptive editing. The questions raised in this thread should be answered by discussion, but that discussion needs to take place within the parameters of site policy. A small group of editors ignorant of site policy cannot hijack or derail the discussion. Right now, I don't see any reason to act administratively, but the content of some commentary here was concerning enough—in terms of being utterly contradictory to site policy—that I felt compelled to say something. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just one tiny problem: your opening comment contains a claim about what is and is not in the NYT source that is factual incorrect. You wrote (quoting a RS) " 'the temporary cavity is the most important factor in wound ballistics of high velocity rifle bullets, and that almost all biological phenomena can be explained by it... The temporary cavity also has little or no wounding potential with handgun bullets because the amount of kinetic energy deposited in the tissue is insufficient...' " That's comparing high velocity rifle bullets with (lower velocity) handgun bullets, and is entirely correct. Alas, you went on the claim "...which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article." Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The trauma surgeons compared assault rifles with the handguns. Not rifles. Assault rifles. No scholarly source makes such a claim. The two claims are not the same. I am shocked that an experienced editor such as yourself would misrepresent the source in this way. The NYT made a claim about assault rifles. Editors wishing to cite the NYT article want to do so on pages about assault rifles. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The source quoted was wrong and ignorantly wrong at that, never mind RS. Schluss. At that point it falls off the bus. The quote is not acceptable in this article or any other article, irrespective of other considerations. Whatever the bullet, the firearm, the clothing, the time of the year, the intentions of the victim or the politics of the assailant might have been, nonsense is nonsense, and we need another source, not walls of text on what might have been or why every opposing editor is a dickhead. JonRichfield (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Both could be true. I could be 100% correct in my claim that "The Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger's version of the AR-15, each chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition and each with the same barrel length, have the same muzzle velocity and ballistics when shooting the same ammunition. Yet the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict." and I could also be a dickhead. It is a factual claim. easily verified in multiple reliable sources. Whether the claim is true of false has nothing to do with who makes the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC on this RFC above dated today. Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Unarchived to request closure at
  WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk
  ) 03:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)