Jump to content

Talk:AR-15–style rifle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 838449606 by Dlthewave (talk) you can stop collapsing my posts, thanks
Undid revision 838453007 by Thewolfchild (talk) Collapse off-topic rant about RfC
Line 178: Line 178:


==New approach needed==
==New approach needed==
{{hat|Off-topic discussion}}
*This is ''exactly'' what I predicted would happen back in February after the Stoneman shooting when there was a sudden push to have firearms articles include criminal use content. Disputes, disruption, and articles out of balance in violation of WP neutrality policies. We tried to establish a project-wide guideline, but instead had that huge train-wreck of an RfC that left each and every event to be decided by local consensus on every single related article. In other words, a waste of time, leading to more conflict, leading to more disruption, leading to more wasted time. And none of this is leading to any kind of improvement for this project. We need to develop a more effective and consistent method to handle this type of content. This constant bickering is getting us no where, and will likely end up in another sensationalized and disingenuous op-ed by some so called 'journalist'. jmho - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User:Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
*This is ''exactly'' what I predicted would happen back in February after the Stoneman shooting when there was a sudden push to have firearms articles include criminal use content. Disputes, disruption, and articles out of balance in violation of WP neutrality policies. We tried to establish a project-wide guideline, but instead had that huge train-wreck of an RfC that left each and every event to be decided by local consensus on every single related article. In other words, a waste of time, leading to more conflict, leading to more disruption, leading to more wasted time. And none of this is leading to any kind of improvement for this project. We need to develop a more effective and consistent method to handle this type of content. This constant bickering is getting us no where, and will likely end up in another sensationalized and disingenuous op-ed by some so called 'journalist'. jmho - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User:Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
::I think literally 5 hours after a discussion has started is a little early to throw up our hands and say "this constant bickering is getting us nowhere". So instead of discussing the discussion, perhaps we should stick to discussing the content of the article. [[User:Red Rock Canyon|Red Rock Canyon]] ([[User talk:Red Rock Canyon|talk]]) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
::I think literally 5 hours after a discussion has started is a little early to throw up our hands and say "this constant bickering is getting us nowhere". So instead of discussing the discussion, perhaps we should stick to discussing the content of the article. [[User:Red Rock Canyon|Red Rock Canyon]] ([[User talk:Red Rock Canyon|talk]]) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Line 185: Line 186:


So after you wrongly claim I am telling people what to do "It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something" you go on to do juts that to Wolf. Really? -[[User:72bikers|72bikers]] ([[User talk:72bikers|talk]]) 01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
So after you wrongly claim I am telling people what to do "It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something" you go on to do juts that to Wolf. Really? -[[User:72bikers|72bikers]] ([[User talk:72bikers|talk]]) 01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}


===Gratuitous content===
===Gratuitous content===

Revision as of 03:37, 27 April 2018

Embarrassing

Is it too much to strive for both accuracy and good grammar?

I know you recently spent a bunch of time on the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section. But I think you can do better.

Here's the text, as of this moment:

Most killings and other gun crimes in the United States are committed with the use of handguns. As a result, AR-15 style rifles are used in a very low overall percentage of gun crimes in the U.S.,[52][53][54] but they have still played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[52] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] AR-15 variants have been used in mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[63] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[63] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[64]

  • Killings are not necessarily gun crimes, nor are they even necessarily crimes. And, while you may have made a killing, it's not likely you've committed a killing. Further, were killings to be committed, more would be committed with the use of forks (to eat diets leading to heart disease) than with the use of handguns.
  • It doesn't follow that the very low overall percentage of AR-15s used in gun crimes is a result of most killings and other gun crimes being committed with the use of handguns. Given the number of handguns versus AR-15 style rifles in the US, it would be remarkable if the latter were used in more than a very low overall percentage of gun crimes.
  • I think the statistic you're trying to get to here is the one that says AR-15 style rifles are used in relatively few mass shootings. And...

Oh, to hell with it. Why try and fix something that is just going to be screwed up again in a couple of weeks? Cinteotl (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with point 1. Point 2 is valid and can be addressed. Based on material I've read, but don't have at hand, the percentage of firearms homicides committed with handguns vs long guns (AR-15s being a subset of long guns) showed that handguns are disproportionately used in crimes. I also saw a stat from a few years back that compared, I think, semi-auto rifles to handguns in mass shootings. It showed that something like 27% of mass shooting used semi-auto rifles (again I don't recall if it was semi-auto rifles vs assault weapons vs etc). So we could add some clarity there but only by inference. I think it would be be good to add that info but it wouldn't be "AR-15" stats. Are we comfortable adding that sort of material? Point 3 basically is addressed above. Springee (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No detailed stats are published on the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in crime. They're generally lumped in with shotguns and other long guns. Here are some possibly useful cites:
"Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns."[1]
"A handgun was used in about 83% of all firearm homicides in 1994, compared to 73% in 2011. Other types of firearms, such as shotguns and rifles, accounted for the remainder of firearm homicides. For nonfatal firearm violence, about 9 in 10 were committed with a handgun, and this remained stable from 1994 to 2011." [2]
"Handguns far outnumber both knives and rifles in American murders." [3]
Weapon types used in mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2017 [4]
Here's a possibly useful dif from a different article:
"While semi-automatic pistols are by far the most prevalent weapons in US mass shootings, AR-15 style rifles have been used in a number of the deadliest incidents, and have come to be widely characterized in the mainstream media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." [5] (Notice the good grammar?) Cinteotl (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is well-written and factual, but I would remove the "mainstream media" qualification.
Several reliable sources focus on the AR-15 style rifle's role in recent shootings:
"Four out of the five deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history have taken place since 2012 and all four of those shooters used AR-15 model rifles in their attacks." [6]
"But in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Conn., in 2012; San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015; Orlando, Fla., in 2016; Las Vegas, 2017; Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 — the attackers primarily used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles." [7]
According to WP:SYN we must be careful not to imply or lead readers toward a conclusion that is not stated by reliable sources. For example, we shouldn't compare two statistics unless the sources also make that same comparison. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this statement Four out of the five deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history have taken place since 2012 and all four of those shooters used AR-15 model rifles in their attacks. - this is a fact strictly speaking, but it is not a neutral statement of a fact. The third deadliest mass shooting in the US was Virginia Tech and it took place in 2007. (This is discussed by academic sources I have cited elsewhere, I can pull them up again if editors are interested.) - this is important since the discussion about the AR in the media has focused heavily on the claim that one can kill more people with an AR than with a handgun (which is a disputed claim based on the full set of facts) - I recently read an article where Zeynep Tufekci was quoted making certain recommendations for the media which included not focusing on the perpetrator, but also not focusing on the weapons. Many articles have been published recently by the media critical of the media's own coverage and the role it plays in these types of attacks. I think the issue of the AR-15 and mass shootings definitely needs to be discussed in this article, but how is still an open question that we will probably be discussing for a while - there are too many sources available to argue for its categorical exclusion, but I think it would be more productive to focus on the academic literature and the full breadth of media sources, including those that have been critical of the media.Seraphim System (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave: The "mainstream media" reference is supported by the citations (which are all mainstream media), and differentiates the claim as being not made by actual subject matter experts (Who are generally careful to distinguish between trademarked AR-15 rifles and AR pattern rifles, and who might point out that, for truly discerning mass shooters, the weapon of choice is the M134.) Cinteotl (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say are "have come to be widely characterized" without referencing "the mainstream media", because the characterization extends beyond the media. Many of these sources are reporting on the on the connection between generic AR-15s and mass shootings—interviewing experts, going through data, whatever—they aren't just making it up themselves. Perhaps subject matter experts disagree, but that sentence doesn't say anything about what firearms experts believe, it simply talks about what people believe in general. Also, I don't think any firearms expert would claim that a minigun is an effective weapon for a single shooter moving around on foot, unless they were just fucking around. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent on the "main stream media" part. If someone is comfortable with wp:Citation merging, that long block of citations needs it. As for overall handguns vs AR-15 homicide data, I haven't ever seen that information. We do have the FBI gun crime data [[8]] which is widely reported. The 2016 data shows 7105 murders by handgun vs 374 for rifles of all types (and 3,077 of type unstated). I think this is relevant as AR-15's are clearly a subset of rifles but what subset isn't clear. I've seen several articles that report this data though not always the 2016 data (the latest set). This BBC article shows the data as a chart and cites the FBI data but doesn't offer the raw numbers[[9]]. This HuffPo article has a clear spin on the data and isn't using the 2016 data but it does cite previous years data [[10]]. NYT with similar data from around 2012 [[11]]
This article offers stats on rifles vs pistols in mass shootings from 1999-2013 (27% used rifles) [[12]]. The article does talk about AR-15s but the stats are specific to the AR-15 so this brings up a question regarding on or off topic. Personally I would be comfortable citing the FBI data but I'm posting these other articles to avoid claims of OR or SYN. I also would generally agree with people who feel that most of this (and the links I've offered) should be in the various crime articles (linked from this article) vs specifically in this article. My quick searching didn't find an article that compared the % of long guns vs % of homicides by long guns in the US (nor one that was AR-15 specifically). Springee (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As editors, it's not our job to track down and interpret the primary source statistics. We should be citing secondary sources that have analyzed the numbers. There's also no need to distinguish between "media sources" and "subject matter experts". A firearms expert is not necessarily an expert in the field of data analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Yes, this article has become somewhat of an embarrassment, but I think it can be turned around. If some of us... just for a moment at least, could stop focusing on "criminal usage", and perhaps look at adding a well rounded section about the various, intended, legitimate uses of civilian AR-15 style rifles, (like I suggested weeks ago), I think that would go a long way towards improving this article. Any one reading this article right now would know some developmental history, comparison to it's military cousin, and as for usage, all they'd know about is the illegitimate use in mass-shootings. So, any thoughts? Nevermind. See thread below. Thanks - theWOLFchild 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any thoughts? Yes, that you just received a very wise warning from NeilN and are already stepping out onto thin ice by returning to the very subject which got you into trouble in the first place. Stop trying to limit inclusion of the same properly sourced content you opposed, and got in trouble for so doing. The use of "AR-15 style rifles" for "mass shootings" is an extremely notable subject that must be covered in both articles. This is exactly THE hot topic from which you should recuse yourself. Otherwise a topic ban will be needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer:, I simply ask if we can revisit the issue of adding content regarding intended, legitimate use, something you have up until now completely ignored and the article is entirely lacking, and your response to is mischaracterize my comment as something completely different, threaten me, and ping an admin in the process? Seriously? And after the way your own behaviour was questioned by admins at that AE report, you want to still carry on like this? That doesn't seem very collegial, or well thought-out. Re-read my comment, in no way did I "oppose", even "try to limit" content on "mass-shooting". This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, and the very content I am suggesting is very much in line with Wikipedia's purpose. We should be including content on the intended, legitimate uses of these rifles. 500 different companies didn't manufacturer, market and sell 12 million of them to the civilian populace, just so that eight could be used in mass shootings, The other 11,999,992 rifles out there are used for activities like target shooting, competitions, prepping/collecting/self-defense, hunting, etc. We should be documenting that. Why are you so opposed to this? (and can we please stay on topic?) - theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm opposed to it. I'm not. Go for it. Just stop trying to control the addition and development of a subject you don't want included here. That's what got you into trouble, so don't return to that behavior. Move on and develop your proposed content. No one is objecting to that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article could be improved by adding or expanding material about the function of this weapon, any variations, and civilian or police usage, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about the section on crime and mass shootings. Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, all you're saying is "what you're talking about is pointless, you should be talking about what I want to talk about instead." Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Rock Canyon: Not at all, I was responding to the OP's comments, specifically their last, unfinished point; "I think the statistic you're trying to get to here is the one that says AR-15 style rifles are used in relatively few mass shootings. And.... I agree, AR-15's have been used in notable mass-shootings and I'm not opposing that content be added in regard to that. I'm just saying that, like the OP, that content could be improved, and furthermore, the article as a whole could be improved if we add information to balance it against the mass-shooting content. At no point did I say; what you're talking about is pointless, you should be talking about what I want to talk about instead. On the one hand, you say you agree with my comment, but then call it "irrelevant". That's somewhat confusing, but if you'd prefer I start a different thread for my suggestion, then I'll do that. - theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Red Rock Canyon, that's a very good summary of what's happened. According to the official warning, TWC has possibly violated 3 of the 4 parts:
* not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions);
* not to impede the formation of consensus by repeatedly making the same points;
* to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed.
Those three elements are relevant here, and TWC needs to stay far away from any behaviors which might be interpreted as violations of those warnings (and their comment did touch on all three). That's what's at stake here.
While they were "on trial", the two relevant articles were improved, and they need to accept that fact and move on. The old policy-violating attitude that such content should only be in some "other" article must be dropped. We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? "POV forks"...? What on earth you talking about? I don't know how to make this any clearer; I am asking other editors their thoughts on adding content regarding the legitimate, intended uses of these rifles. That's all, nothing else. I even struck my comment above and started a new thread, so there wouldn't (hopefully) be any confusion. So, again, can we please stay on topic? Thanks - theWOLFchild 16:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content you suggest belongs here. No one has suggested otherwise.
About POV forks,... You have battled against inclusion of any content that mentions the connection between AR-15s and mass shootings, and have said it belongs elsewhere, not here. That is one of the attitudes involved in forbidden POV forking. That content belongs in the relevant articles, and not "somewhere else, as long as it isn't here". You don't get to banish such content. That's ownership behavior, violates NPOV, and treats that "other" preferred location as a POV fork for the content you don't want here.
That content actually does belong here, so stop criticizing it or complaining about our discussing it. Don't distract from this subject because you think another subject deserves attention. The content you want sounds very good. Go for it and I'm sure many editors will help you. There is no reason why both subjects cannot be accommodated here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. What I pushed for, was balance in this, and related articles. Something that is still sorely lacking. I'm on record as voting for the inclusion of the mass-shooting content, just not to the point it violates NPOV. It would be nice if you would stop claiming otherwise, as well as attacking me every time I post here, simply because of an AE warning. I don't recall you being appointed to any kind of position to "warn" me about anything, nor tell me what I can and can't post here. I think you've even realized you've gone too far and posting a friendly "go for it" after every. single. post. of. mine will not change that. One of the AE warnings was "to focus on content, not contributors". You'd be wise to start following that yourself. So stop with the "fork" nonsense and other things I did not say, and, again... for the (third? fourth?) time, please, stay on topic. The topic I'm suggesting, in the thread below, is the addition of content regarding the legitimate, intended use of these rifles. That's it, that's all. If you wish to contribute, great. If not, please stop this persistent disruption. Thank you - theWOLFchild 17:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Balance"? One short paragraph does not create a balance problem or violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And like I asked at the very beginning of all this (go check if you don't believe me), will it stay at "one short paragraph"...? There will be more shootings, some will involve ARs, do we keep adding every shooting? What happens when it becomes one long paragraph? Then two? Then three? You see, I thought this was the purpose of the RfC, to determine what the community thought was appropriate in this regard. But long before the RfC was even close to finished, a small group here just went ahead and added that content anyway. Now, I'm not disputing that content. I'm just looking to add content to help balance it. - theWOLFchild 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in edit warring collapse tags here but I think the collapsed discussion started at least somewhat on topic. It started as at least semi-legitimate criticism, especially given the section title. I think the part I agree with the most is that we probably should expand the non-crime material and leave much of the crime debate and details to linked articles. POV fork was noted. I don't think that applies here since those other topics (gun crime, mass shootings etc) already exist and weren't created as POV forks from this article. In defense of those who haven't fixed it, well I haven't either. ;) Springee (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, this kind of manipulation of other editors comments is just the type of "clerking" that was recently warned about, and to do so repeatedly, is indeed edit-warring and disruptive. But just the same, it's probably best we ignore the route this thread has taken, (that's what I'm gonna do). As it is, I struck my initial comment and started a new thread just below, about the addition of legitimate use information, so if you're interested in assisting with this content, please contribute to that thread. Any help would definitely be appreciated. Cheers - theWOLFchild 03:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate use content

I think we should consider adding content regarding the intended, legitimate uses for these rifles (target shooting, competitions, prepping/collecting/self-defense, hunting, etc). Any thoughts? Thanks - theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gee thanks. Anyway, here is an article from the New York Times; "‘It’s One of the Greatest Rifles’: Fans of the AR-15 Explain the Gun’s Appeal" (By Jack Healy, 20 FEB 2018), it discusses a 34 year old musician who like to take his AR-15 target shooting, a 13 year old girl who built her first AR-15 at age 9 and takes part in competitions, along with her father, and a 55 year old "extremely liberal" AR-15 owner who used his rifle for 30 years to both hunt and target-shoot. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. - theWOLFchild 17:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the sarcasm. AGF. I really meant it. Go ahead and develop this as content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And there's no need for your continued condescension. Of course, you could AGF yourself and assume I really was thanking you for your permission to proceed, but really, if you're going to post anything, I'd rather it remain on topic (for the fifth time). - theWOLFchild 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to move forward would be to propose a specific change, or just go ahead and boldly add it to the article yourself. I don't think anyone is really opposed to this. My only concern is that the sources presented in the previous discussion consist mainly of quotes by AR-15 users, with little to no analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I don't think a bold addition is the way to go. I would almost assuredly be reverted, start some kind dispute, maybe even a complaint to AE or ANI, so basically a waste of time. I would prefer if we could first agree on the addition of a legitimate use section, what kind of uses should or should not be included, and what sourcing would be acceptable to support this content, as that has already been an issue with that. As for sourcing, there is a sense of hypocrisy here, and I'm not directing that at anyone specific, nor am I using that as an insult, but as a perceived contradiction. When sources such as TIME, NY Times, CNBC, etc, report on the illegal use of these rifles to kill people, there is seemingly no issue with using those sources to support that information in creating content. Yet, when those very same sources report on the legitimate use of these rifles, all of sudden they're not acceptable? They even support the facts in their reporting by directly going to the legal owners who use ARs for their intended purposes; target shooting, hunting, competitions, etc., etc. Why is that not acceptable? What kind of neutral, detached, expert analysis is required here? And is that same neutral, detached, expert analysis used to support each and every instance of sourcing with the criminal use content? I don't ask that because I'm challenging the criminal use content, I'm simply looking for examples of what some people here are seeking as acceptable sourcing. - theWOLFchild 03:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:, well, someone has hidden our comments above and I don't know if you read mine yet, so I'll again say that if you're interested in helping with the addition of some legitimate use content, it would be appreciated. This would be the place, it's the reason I created this thread, as the one above is somewhat of a mess now. It appears that the idea of such an addition is acceptable. We should determine how many different uses should be included and how much detail. Sourcing seems like it might be an issue, so any input on that would also be appreciated. This goes for anyone else who cares to help out. Cheers - theWOLFchild 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

User:Pharos The hatnote should be above any maintenance tags, which I fixed here [13] per WP:ORDER. You undid this here [14]. Please can you check that your edit is incorrect and redo it as I'm not fixing it again only to get undone by someone maintaining the article, regards Widefox; talk 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, fixed.--Pharos (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting crime section after intro

@Waleswatcher: has changed the section order of the article to put the crime section just after the intro. This is a change that doesn't follow the layout of many/most articles that I'm aware of. Per WP:ONUS this change now needs a discussion to stay. Absent consensus for the change it should be reverted. Springee (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you write "...doesn't follow the layout of many/most articles that I'm aware of"? Speaking for myself, I'm aware of many wiki articles with all sorts of layouts. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you make the change, you get reverted, you seek consensus. That's how this works. I'm going to put it back where it was, since that seems to make the most sense to me. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that Waleswatcher gave a good explanation, namely: "Use in crime and mass shootings is obviously more important than the modularity of the rifle, as is born out by the fact that one is discussed in the lede and the other not." --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem is simply procedural. The edit was rejected so the next step is come here and get consensus for the change. I disagree with the edit because, as is the case with many such topic, we describe what it is first then talk about impacts and teh like. It becomes a basically chronological order. What is it, where did it come from, how does it work, then how was it used. If the order of the article is going to change lets get a few more eyes on it to discuss things first. BTW, I wouldn't assume that the lead is correct. Looking at it I think the lead could use some real work. Springee (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think giving an actual description of what the term means what the guns are is most important. The section ordering could probably be improved, but I'd say that terminology, modularity, and comparison to military versions should be higher up than usage in crime and mass shootings, since they provide key facts about what the guns are and how they work, which I think is more fundamental than how they are used. Not sure about the other sections. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur criminal use should follow a description of the rifle's features. The fact that these rifles have been used is less important than the reasons they have been used. I would argue that certain features make AR-15 style rifles more effective than some other firearms, but the current focus on coverage in reliable sources indicates publicity may be a more significant reason. In that case, I suggest Wikipedia should carefully consider whether we want to join the sources which may encourage potential mass shooters to select these rifles. We can easily revise the lead section as appropriate to justify revised sequencing of the remainder of the article. Thewellman (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that the lede determines importance and relevance here doesn't make sense logically as this is apparently a piece of work that is under revue in general. Rather, logic would dictate that we then need to assume that the lede requires correction based upon the results of these most recent discussions. As for the importance of modularity, this is a literal feature of the design itself, as such it is significantly more relevant to the rifle itself than events which fall outside of the intended use of the design Syr74 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the lede not just a little over the top with all the references to crimes and legality? I believe there is certainly not this much attention given on this content in any books or article of black rifles. This is already covered in the article under its own heading. And I fail to see were that much weight needs to be placed on that content. This content does also have many of its own articles devoted to it. Should it not all just be merely in a see also or perhaps in certain circumstances main article at such and such. Would that not certainly be a compromise. Saying " I'm aware of many wiki articles with all sorts of layouts" is certainly not a defense of the current lede. -72bikers (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the references to crime and legality are fine the way they are. But maybe it would make sense to add slightly more material describing the basic function of the rifle, if you're concerned about balance of material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone who knows anything about firearms, modularity is the single best reason for this type of gun success. -72bikers (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wafflehouse shooting

@Waleswatcher:, at this point it may be too soon to include that shooting in the article. I would suggest getting some consensus for inclusion (see previous discussions of similar cases). Currently I would oppose inclusion as not notable in context of the article topic. Springee (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Springee that this event is of trivial significance to the subject of this article. Thewellman (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should have have some kind of way of determining which shootings are significant enough to bring up, and describe them as representative of many more that have to go unmentioned. Unfortunately, if we included every mass shooting mentioned in a newspaper where the shooter used an AR-15, the entire article would be shootings and we might as well rename it to "list of mass shootings where the killer used an AR-15 style rifle". I think secondary sources, like those that describe the history of AR-15s being used in mass shootings that we already have in the article, would be helpful guidance for determining signifigance, instead of just going by news reports of individual events. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is beneficial for the readers to introduce this crime content in the article every time a crime is committed. This heading is now already bigger than or as large as most of the other headings in the article, this in my mind looks like undo weight being placed on this content. To blame a inanimate object instead of addressing the real problem of mental health, as especially this buck-naked deranged crazy has shown and not anything about it in the Mental disorder article, were it clearly belongs. Would it not be better to just have a sentence or two then a see also or main article link to the mass shootings article.72bikers (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mental health is certainly an important and relevant issue, especially for this particular shooting. The fact that said crazy people can easily procure AR-15 rifles and kill many people with them is what makes this event particularly pertinent for an article on that specific type of weapon. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@72bikers: The "Use in crime and mass shootings" section is currently 1077 characters. It is the shortest prose-style section in the article. If you think this should be added to Mental disorders then you should go ahead and add it there. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be "too soon"? It's not as though there is any debate about the facts. As for significance, four people were murdered (and only that few because someone managed to take the gun away) and the event was reported across the world as front-page news. There are certainly hundreds and maybe even thousands of secondary sources. That is way past the threshold of notability per wiki standards. Moreover it was prominently reported in most or all of those reports that the gun was an AR-15 or AR-15 style rifle, which makes it plainly significant for this article (for the same reason the other mass shootings are). Waleswatcher (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Were does it end, you can not include every crime commited in this article, as I have mentioned undo weight being placed on this content. And as far as numbers it is just a aturday night in Chicago. Even the smaller town I live in we have had four people found dead in a house killed all at one time and even more instances like this.72bikers (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit this content should be placed in the Mental disorders article but you fail to have the interest to put it there. Really? -72bikers (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as size you are just splitting hairs, as visually it looks bigger or as large as most of the other headings. -72bikers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize we have plenty of reliable sources stating that the shooter used an AR-15, and that it was a newsworthy event. But how many newsworthy events have occurred where the shooter used an AR-15? I bet if you dug through news archives you'd find at dozens, perhaps hundreds of shootings of similar coverage over the past few decades where the shooter used an AR-15. It is unfortunately, a too common event in this world. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and it isn't an indiscriminate dump of information. I don't know if this Waffle House shooting was significant enough to include in this article, it's still in the headlines. Will anyone be talking about this a month from now? A year from now? Maybe we should wait to get some perspective. But even if this turns out to be an event of lasting significance, the larger problem still confronts us: we can't include all of the shootings where people were killed by an AR-15 that received this kind of coverage in this article. Also, 72bikers, whatever is going on with the Mental Disorders article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something. Nobody has to work on any article, and you can't order people to do so. Additionally, whether the weapon was "to blame" is equally irrelevant to the determination of what information belongs on this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and as "in scope and not undue" as it is, even as brief as it is, will this be the way of things now? Every time there is a shooting involving an AR-15, is it going to be added to this list? Because that's what this is; a list. A repeat, actually, of the list that is already linked twice, in the the lead and in the very same section that all these shootings are being noted in. At some point, this list will outweigh the article (some may feel it already does). Is there a point where even the most ardent of supporters of this content see that this info should be presented another way? - theWOLFchild 01:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Wolf here. Where is the limit? The Project Firearms crime suggestion was well considered. We do need some sort of balance between mentioning every time a particular type of gun is used in a crime and the broader readability and encyclopedic value of the addition. The section in question is about the general controversy relating to the use of the AR-15 type rifles in mass shootings. We'll we have three good examples and the rest of the section can focus the boarder topic. That is how articles on the subject (AR-15s in mass shootings) seem to work. In general they do not simply list every example the reporter can find. We shouldn't either. Due weight of course is the basis we should be using here. Well, in context of the rifle does this shooting have any impact? Thus far no. As such it's reasonable to argue it has no weight what so ever. Also in this case no one is arguing that this crime was made particularly deadly because the shooter had an AR-15 vs say a 9mm pistol. Perhaps after a few weeks the narrative will change and this will become a story about the AR-15 the way Sandy Hook was. Currently it isn't. Springee (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly demanded nothing, please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. And mental health is at the root of this kind of crime, so if you are to define the event by a weapon, why not the root of the issue.72bikers (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also your statement "whether the weapon was "to blame" is equally irrelevant to the determination of what information belongs on this article" this would contradict your reasons for inclusion as well as most of the other editors that state it is relevant. So you are saying just because this weapon was simple used in a crime and mentioned in the news it should be in this article even thought this event is well covered elsewhere on Wiki. -72bikers (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The brief mention of the shooting isn't undue. It's useful to crosslink information like this, and it's common for firearms article to include an extensive Users section because this is often the aspect that receives the most coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Crosslinking doesn't make the material due or undue. The weight with respect to the topic does that. Why does this crime have weight in context of the AR-15 article? The articles I've seen are about the crime, not the AR-15 type rifle. A scan of headlines and articles don't put much emphasis on the AR-15 vs the mental state of the shooter. Springee (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Springee, the gun specifically was only briefly mentioned and his mental health by far received more coverage. -72bikers (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That simply isn't true. I just google searched "Waffle house shooting" on google news. The first hit never mentions his mental health, and the part of the story that's about the shooting begins with this: "But Reinking’s father gave the weapons back to his son, who allegedly used one of them — an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle — to open fire at the Waffle House, killing four and wounding four before 29-year-old James Shaw Jr. wrestled the rifle out of his hands, police said." Waleswatcher (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that article was talking about the suicide prevention steps the authorities were talking presumably due to his mental state. The AR-15 got passing mention at the very end of the article. This is exactly the sort of incidental mention that doesn't justify inclusion in an article about AR-15s. Springee (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dlthewave: - "The brief mention of the shooting isn't undue." - wadr, you are missing the point here. How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article? There are going to be more AR-15 incidents in the news, do we just keep adding them indefinitely? Or at some point do we consider a new approach to handling this content, as I asked in the section below? - theWOLFchild 18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the length of the section concerning, as long as it reflects RS coverage. It's common practice to include long lists in firearms articles such as the Users section of Glock. If it begins to overwhelm the article, we can spin it off as a separate list similar to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737. –dlthewave ☎ 23:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "list of users" and "list of mass shootings" are simply not comparable. As for a separate list for all these mass shootings and other criminal use incidents, that is something I suggested weeks ago. Perhaps the "list of mass shootings in the U.S." page should include the type/brand of firearm (s) used in each incident, then that article would only need to be listed once in the "See also" sections of any related firearms articles, which would put a lot of these concerns about undue and weight to rest along with all the ongoing disputes and debates surrounding the addition of this type of content. - theWOLFchild 00:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Community consensus is to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Yes, this means we're going to have to keep having these discussions, but that's a normal part of the consensus-building process. The consensus for this particular article is to include a paragraph-style crime/mass shooting section. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably that RfC was poorly formed and thus left no suggestions for how to view weight. Consensus is nice but previously editors complained that local consensus was dominated by "pro gun" editors who wanted to exclude all mention of crimes. If consensus was all that matters what was the issue with exclusion based on local consensus? What we really need is some sort of consensus that helps people understand how we should interpret the weight of mentions in articles. I feel that the project firearms suggestions were very good and made sense in context of Wikipedia policies, guidelines etc. Now the question is still open. Interestingly, the Toronto van crime hasn't been added to the Ryder or Chevy Express Van articles. This is why many editors feel there is a double standard with regards to guns. Springee (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - TWC, you ask How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article? But we are not here the debate the future state of the article; we are here to discuss the present state. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well... your dictates aside, there are those of us that are concerned about the "present" direction of the editing of some of these articles and the impact it will have on "future" content and balance. In some cases, that 'future' is imminent. (also, it would be nice if you could offer something helpful, at least once, if you are going to continue dogging my posts. this constant personal criticism is accomplishing nothing). - theWOLFchild 00:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question shouldn't be "how many". The question is why are they in the article in the first place? The three very high profile mass shootings make sense as examples in context of the section. Not to dismiss the victims in this case but the WH shooting is small in comparison and so far has had very limited impact. Remember that this is an article about a type of firearm, not about crime so the inclusions need to have weight in context of the article subject. This one doesn't. We should use the Churchill speech rule, mention things in blocks of three. That actually means we could trim some of the others. Either way, at this point there is simply no consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These incidents are covered in the linked article; "Mass shootings in the United States", and with that, I'm still wondering why that page is linked twice in this article? Anyone? - theWOLFchild 02:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's helpful for readers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate more and actually specifically explain why there is a need for a redundant link. This generally runs contrary to Wiki policies and only "if it significantly aids the reader". Also were is this consensus you speak of, I see many editors opposed to this content inclusion and there has been no compromise made. There are many articles that not once mention any gun at all [16] or when republished from the Associated Press "WAFFLE HOUSE SHOOTING Suspected shooter was troubled for years" [17] that not once mention any gun, it only talked about his mental state. The full article only had one trivial mention of the gun [18]. And many more that had only one or so trivial mentions, (proof the gun was his[19]), (one brief mention in a write-up [20]), (one trivial mention when disarmed in a large article[21]), (two trivial mention in a report of mental state[22]) -72bikers (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style page you're referring to says that generally a link should appear once, but if it's helpful for readers, a link can be repeated at the first occurrence after the lead. That's the situation we have here in the AR-15 style rifle article; "mass shootings in the United States" is linked once in the lead, and once near the bottom of the article. The MOS portion you've quoted regarding "only if it significantly aids the reader" is inapplicable, as that's in reference to stand-alone and embedded lists. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just splitting hairs. This content "mass shootings in the United States" is not what the article is about. This content is covered in many other articles on Wiki. But we are to believe that this link need to out weight the actual article content? You still have not addressed how it specifically helps the reader. Did they forget by the time they read to the bottom of the article? Can you show this occurrence in unrelated article. -72bikers (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with AzureCitizen, the repeat link is appropriate to include in both the lead and section. Readers often want to continue on to a more in-depth article after reading a section, and I personally find it useful to have the extra link in the same section as the related content. I'm not following the "out weigh the actual article content" concern as the link is in fact part of the article content and does not add any extra length or weight. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New approach needed

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • This is exactly what I predicted would happen back in February after the Stoneman shooting when there was a sudden push to have firearms articles include criminal use content. Disputes, disruption, and articles out of balance in violation of WP neutrality policies. We tried to establish a project-wide guideline, but instead had that huge train-wreck of an RfC that left each and every event to be decided by local consensus on every single related article. In other words, a waste of time, leading to more conflict, leading to more disruption, leading to more wasted time. And none of this is leading to any kind of improvement for this project. We need to develop a more effective and consistent method to handle this type of content. This constant bickering is getting us no where, and will likely end up in another sensationalized and disingenuous op-ed by some so called 'journalist'. jmho - theWOLFchild 21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think literally 5 hours after a discussion has started is a little early to throw up our hands and say "this constant bickering is getting us nowhere". So instead of discussing the discussion, perhaps we should stick to discussing the content of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead, no one is stopping you from 'discussing' said content. But even if you can come to some kind of agreement here, it still won't have any affect on future disputes on this, or any other related article, regarding this type of content. We need a better guideline in place that is project-wide, or this will just go on and on... - theWOLFchild 22:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and make a project-wide policy. That doesn't need to be on this talk page. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not a single word of that reply is in any way helpful. How about I see if anyone else has a response that is perhaps more collegial and on topic...? (that is a rhetorical question, there is no need for a response) Thank you and have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So after you wrongly claim I am telling people what to do "It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something" you go on to do juts that to Wolf. Really? -72bikers (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuitous content

Discussion moved to Talk:Gun laws in the Czech Republic#Gratuitous content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't care to get into a lengthy discussion over the appropriateness of criminal use content in gun articles – I hear that some editors feel this content is gratuitous: unjustified or unnecessary; not called for. Just want to bring your attention to and get some feedback on another type of, in my opinion, gratuitous content. I tried to remove the photo at the top of the Gun laws in the Czech Republic article, but was reverted. Does this pic of a hot hottie packing heat in a gun shop somehow illustrate gun laws to a degree that merits knocking the chart of gun license holders and registered firearms in the Czech Republic over time lower on the page? Feel free to reply here or there. wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a girl in the gun shop... big deal. Should the shop be empty? Would you be happier if it was a dude holding the gun? Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with AR-15s. Perhaps you should try that article's talk page for feedback, or maybe WT:GUNS. - theWOLFchild 00:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

A discussion related to this topic is taking place at NPOV Noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AR-15–style_rifle&oldid=838456020"