Wikipedia

Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 4

< Talk:Colt AR-15
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Slatersteven in topic AR
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

"used in many mass shootings"

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This edit was a reversion that removed a claim of the AR-15's used in "many mass shootings" on the basis that had no references. This article may be a suitable reference, if that's the only reason for that claim's removal. - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

thx for the hint. Since we are here on the discside of Colt AR-15 it is interesting to see that not one Colt AR-15 is mentioned in the list of the article you presented. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is a bit funny. The Colt AR-15 is not singled out from other similar rifles in the attempt to restrict access to such guns, as is mentioned in that section, so I think that reference could still be appropriate, even though there are no actual Colt AR-15s on the list. - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Since we have the AT-15 Style Rifle article I would suggest not using generalized statements about AR-15 type rifles here. This article should be strictly Colt AR-15s. Springee (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like references weren't the only reason after all. That makes sense to me, thank you. And I assume you're referring to the AR-15 style rifle article; AT-15 sounds more like a rifle that walks (attempt at humor, not always my strong suit). - Mr.1032 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
D'oh! Yes, I wasn't thinking Star Wars. (leaving the mistake so your comments stay in context ;) Springee (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Since this is about the COLT AR15 and the COLT AR15 doesn't seem to be used in "many mass shootings", there's no reason to include it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of photos

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I love pictures, but I think we're going a little overboard with the number of pics used in this article. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I went ahead and removed the photo of the Ruger SR-556. Most of the close-ups can probably go as well. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Week

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I restored "The adolescent cult of the AR-15" from The Week to the media template. The article is clearly about this page. At the time of the writing, "Colt AR-15" was the page that had "AR-15" in its name. The page that is now AR-15 was then called "Modern Sporting Rifle". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, in that case are you going to remove it from the AR15 style rifle page which didn't exist at the time? The article slanders one of our editors while providing no insight or value. Springee (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the entry has already been removed from the AR-15 Talk page: [1], which seems fair. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Port Arthur Massacre

Latest comment: 6 years ago80 comments29 people in discussion
Closing per AN request. There is consensus for inclusion of the material at issue, in a proportion of about 3 to 1. Sandstein 16:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Port Arthur Massacre be mentioned in this article? –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The following section was recently challenged:

Following the use of a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine in the Port Arthur massacre, the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996 was enacted in Australia, restricting the private ownership of high capacity semi-automatic rifles.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ "Firearms in Australia: a guide to electronic resources". aph.gov.au. Commonwealth of Australia. 9 August 2007. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
  2. ^ "How Australia Passed Gun Control: The Port Arthur Massacre and Beyond". Foreign Affairs. October 13, 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
  3. ^ Wahlquist, Calla (14 March 2016). "It took one massacre: how Australia embraced gun control after Port Arthur". The Guardian.

Survey options

  • Support - Include the Port Arthur Massacre. Please specify whether you support the text as written, a different version or something else such as a "See also" link.
  • Oppose - Do not mention the Port Arthur Massacre at all.

Straw Poll

  • Oppose - Do not mention the Port Arthur Massacre at all... Not this again. For all the reasons stated in previous discussions. --RAF910 (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
"Not this again." That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments. Sounds much like "I don't like it." Please elaborate. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I think "please elaborate" is sufficient, no? There's no need for insults. - theWOLFchild 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
As someone who experienced some personal impact from the Port Arthur Massacre, I felt insulted by someone implying it wasn't important, with no better explanation than "Not this again." HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
First let me say that, sincerely, that I've persinally seen the tragic effects a mass-shooting has collaterally and I'm sorry that you had to experience that. But you have to know that RAF910, (or I), couldn't have known that, and certainly weren't in any way trying to dismiss your feelings on this. The "Not this again" comment isn't the only explanation, though. If you'd been following this issue, you'd see that RAF910 is coming from a position that this topic has already been discussed, both recently and at length. (I don't know the details, I just seen his other comments). But that aside, we have to try and keep our personal feelings from affecting our editing, hence the reason we have NPOV for articles and NPA for talk pages. I'm sure you agree with that. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 08:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
off topic comments

I restored the comment; please don't clerk discussions.--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't want to see this derailed any further. Please see your talk page. Thank you - theWOLFchild 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 - That's an interesting turn. The first time around, your only response was to explain the comment, not claim it was something different. I replied and hoped that was the end of it. But now after some edits, you are re-instating it. I know if someone claimed I "spent my life sitting here reading old arguments", with multiple underlying insulting contexts, I would certainly take offence. But since the comment was directed at RAF910 and not me, I won't comment on this any further and leave it be. - theWOLFchild 16:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not claim someone else "spent my life sitting here reading old arguments". I simply said that I (and I guessed some others) didn't. Please don't read more into my comments than the words I actually use. I try to choose them carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I merged the side conversation into the collapsible area and put the responses in chrono order. No need to get this off-topic any further. Please see my Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support proposed text as written; no reason to oppose this sourced content. Geogene (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:Firearms criminal use this is a significant crime that clearly had an impact on the laws of Australia and on the gun debate in the US. But, I do think a strong case against inclusion can be made because, for all the times I've seen Port Arthur and the subsequent prohibition on semi-automatic rifles mentioned in context of the US gun control debate, I've wasn't even aware that the rifle in question was a Colt AR-15 (or an AR-15 of any type). So in that regard I would say a strong argument can be made that WP:WEIGHT rejects inclusion because, in context of the Colt brand AR-15 the crime seems to have had little to no impact even if the broader impact was VERY significant. Ultimately I'm torn on the matter but feel that this is one of the few cases where the significance of the legal changes after the crime are such that inclusion is warranted. Springee (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Possibly your unawareness of the brand of the weapon was due to a lack of previous mention. Is that a lack which ought to be fixed? Or is the lack an indication of non-significance? I would argue that being a semiautomatic assualt-style (i.e., "AR-15") model is significant, and warrants mention. But perhaps the brand warrants only a footnote? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Supportper Springee. Signficant crime, significant effect on laws, still impacting the debate on the otehr side of the world. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the sources about the shooting only mention the type of rifle in passing, and sources about the rifle do not mention the shooting. The rifle might be notable to the shooting, but I don't think the shooting is notable to the rifle. This is not like the case of US mass shootings in the AR-15 type rifle article, where inclusion is supported by sources discussing in detail how the weapons affect and are affected by the shootings. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Red Rock Canyon above; there is good reason to avoid lending undue weight to an event which has had so little effect on the subject of this article. The Colt AR-15 is important to Port Author and as such warrants mention in that article, the reverse is not the case. Syr74 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Springee. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Red Rock Canyon.note- found about this RfC because of a related AN/I thread.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - That an incident involving this model got the whole class banned in Australia seems very much worth mentioning. Support the sentence as previously, plus maybe more. The article lead is too short anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This incident was a key element in the development of Australia's gun laws, being used now by many as an example the USA could learn from. Clearly significant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment #1 - Not all of the "support" !votes have specified; "whether you support the text as written, a different version or something else such as a "See also" link" ...as requested in the RfC OP.
    FYI. - theWOLFchild 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - for the for the text as written and no more. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
  • Question - where in the listed sources does it say Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine ? The first source lists no model, the second only a Colt AR-15 and the third only an AR-15. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
  • Support Gun laws directly involving this gun should be mentioned, such as the U.S. law mentioned in the lede. There should be a section in the article on gun laws relating to AR-15. First Light (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Gun laws related to the AR-15 doesn't sound like a "Colt AR-15 (TM)" subject but rather something that may be related to AR-15 style rifle which is the article where the general AR-15 type rifle is covered and includes discussions of AR-15's and the media discussions about the rifles after a number of mass shootings. Springee (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
But a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine was used in the Port Arthur incident, no? A new gun law was passed based on that, no? The massacre should be mentioned here also, imo, not just the new gun law based on it. First Light (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The Port Arthur incident was a key to changing Australia's gun laws. This weapon played a vital role. Clearly significant. CamV8 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support of course; significant event and well sourced. Not discussing stuff like this would be like omitting birth defects from the thalidomide article (a drug that is very, very useful) and the way that those birth defects led to changes in federal law about drug testing. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a whole section in AR15 just for this event is going WP:OFFTOPIC with prominence far beyond due WP:WEIGHT. I believe this and similar have had prior discussions which ended with this article should not cover these as part of its content. Note a See Also would not be part of this article so is an 'Oppose' -- but might be allowed by prior discussions. (Prior discussions like this seem to be at recent Village pump RFC, this article Archive 3 twice, and Archive 2 once ?) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly significant and well sourced. Boggles the mind how anyone could think a short mention of this highly significant event would be "undue" - that's simply unsupported by policy. Neutralitytalk 03:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Refer to WP:UNDUE. A zillion articles on AR15 where 99%+ do not even mention this event is how the prominence of a whole section and amount of content here is WP:UNDUE. Even at the article about the event or about the law the gun would get minor or no mention. Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
If the gun articles you're talking about are in sporting magazines, then I wouldn't expect them to talk about this, because they're geared toward a specific audience and a very specific subject matter. Guns and Ammo famously dismissed an editor a few years ago for infuriating their readership by writing an editorial in favor of some form of gun regulation [2], which shows that while they are probably reliable for some things, their failure to discuss mass shootings isn't surprising or meaningful. But not everything you'll find written about AR-15s is in sporting magazines. [3] The goal here is to represent all significant points of view found in reliable sources, in proportion to their prevalence. That begins with the gun's history and operation, but it doesn't end there. Geogene (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Geogene - no, all sources or specifically BBC.com and WashingtonPost.com have less than 1% of AR15 articles or mentions also mentioning Port Arthur. Even if I allowed Port Arthur Texas. Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly signifiant; proposed text as written; and moving forward, needs appropriate additions, if required. scope_creep (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks like the oppose opinion (as expressed by User:Dlohcierekim, User:Syr74 & User:Red Rock Canyon) is that we shouldn't mention the factoid, b/c sources only give the factoid passing mention. It seems to me that the proposed wording is basically "passing mention" to the Port Author Massacre. I don't know why we'd say the AR-15 deserves passing mention in the context of the massacre but not vice versa. The massacre seems like one of the most notable global events that the AR-15 has been involved in. It doesn't seem undue to mention it. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@User:NickCT My question here would be, if this is obviously important for inclusion within this article because the opposite is true, then why wouldn't scholastically acceptable tomes typically include Port Author under any AR-15 related text but would find it reasonable to include the Colt AR-15 as a component within an entry on the Port Author Massacre itself? The reason is obvious and simple, the subject of the Colt AR-15 article is specifically the AR-15, it should obviously be included within the text of any entries covering the Port Author Massacre as those would be incomplete without it, but including the Port Author Massacre within the Colt AR-15 article is realistically pointless and serves primarily to polarize and give a poor impression of Wikipedia. You don't actually need to include Port Author in the Colt AR-15 article for people to be able to easily find that information, and to do so in every instance where this approach is plausible would and does create duplicity on a scale that is staggering, so why do it? This is a big part of the reason why scholars will never accept Wikipedia as a credible source on the whole as, despite what are generally good intentions, we don't often enough avoid the appearance of bias. Wikipedia is not and never will be Encyclopedia Britannica online, and it shouldn't be, but I had hoped that it would become more scholarly over time and bring truly credible, relevant information to the masses. On the other side of that equation, Wikipedia most definitely should not be a larger, more poorly worded version of tabloid/pop news websites the Mirror either, but it seems as though we are leaning a good deal more toward the tabloid and pop news end of the spectrum than the credible information end of the same. The intentions are good, but the results are often unfortunate. Syr74 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Syr74: - Scholars don't accept WP cause they're generally jealous that they no longer have a monopoly on knowledge.
I sympathize with your point, but I don't feel like inclusion is unscholarly or necessarily a result of biases. Speaking directly to your point re "why wouldn't scholastically acceptable tomes typically include Port Author under any AR-15 related text"; how many references can you point to which actually cover the "History" of the AR-15? I think if we collected a set of sources which specifically cover the history of the AR-15, you probably would find that some reasonable number of them mention the massacre.
And at the end of the day, we are discussing a single sentence here, right? Making WP:WEIGHT arguments over a single sentence is rarely convincing unless you're talking about the most trivial minutia (which I don't think this is).
For the record, I usually take a moderate stance on gun control (from an American standpoint at least, which is probably pro-gun from a European standpoint). NickCT (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the text as written because the information shows up in many sources. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because of change in national gun law, but I don't think it needs to be an entire section. A one sentence addition to the AR-15 style rifle section seems fine.Seraphim System (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Red Rock Canyon. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support clearly a major event that influenced a huge change in large country's firearms regulations. Pmsyyz (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I think that the voting options here are problematic. Support with a possible caveat to include a link isn't an option I'm comfortable with for reasons I suspect are clear. As such, I am forced to vote with a simple oppose. Syr74 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The intent is that editors will explain the level of coverage they feel is appropriate. Since this isn't a vote, whoever closes the discussion will gauge the consensus based on these comments. I want to avoid a situation in which someone !votes "oppose" just because they have a minor quibble with the wording. –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that the intent is good here, the layout itself is short-sighted in my opinion and absolutely gives the appearance of a bias toward the support side of the argument. Even though this is not a scholastic article we can learn something from that well developed format, which is that the question should be written as if the burden is on inclusion, not omission, as it allows for a better snapshot of what people actually think. For example, if 10 people support here and 6 oppose, but 3 of those who support only support inclusion of a see also link and no actual of inclusion of any text in this article, the final vote wouldn't in any way support the majority view which would be no text within the article. Honestly, I suspect that this is a formality because I fully expect support to take the day here easily either way, but appearances do matter. We need to be careful that it looks like we gave every option an equal opportunity so these things can be put to bed permanently. 98.23.45.127 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The word "permanently" doesn't belong in a discussion of this nature. Recent student protests tell us that, clearly, moods change in this arena. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
And that is the problem, moods shouldn't direct an encyclopedia, relevance and balance should. Syr74 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course, and as the mood of the public changes, and reliable sources tell us about the changed attitudes, that is what we report. We cannot write as if the mood of the public will never change. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone checked the basis for this discussion? "Following the use of a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine in the Port Arthur massacre" has doubts due to my request for sources in Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Sources --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. Warner, Kate; (March 1, 1999) stated: " It is a version of the M16 used by the US military and it has but one purpose - to kill or disable. "
  • I previously hadn't checked the sources for the proposed passage. Two of the three don't support the claim and the one remaining is weak. I would suggest we find one or two more sources that support the claim (shouldn't be hard) and fix the sourcing. While I'm supporting inclusion here, I think the weight, especially as cited is weak and wouldn't pass DUE as cited. If nothing is added by this evening I try to find some sources. Springee (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well if not the specific model SP1 Carbine was mentioned, it is somehow logically that it can not have had influence on developing laws in australia. My assumption is that the government thought broader as of "assault rifles" or Battle rifle. BTW in the case of "Port Arthur massacre" there is a second rifle with missing sources. The identification as L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle as quoted in the article could be an urban legend. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This is why I'm very on the fence with this crime. There were two semi-auto rifles involved but it doesn't seem that many sources link either specific rifle to the crime. It seems the crime is associated with the general class of "Semi-auto rifle" but not with the specific rifles used. But since this is such a significant crime in terms of outcome and impact to the politics of gun control I'm actually ignoring what I think is a weak weight argument. Springee (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Because the information came from a IP-Editor i followed IP 96.54.224.159. Surprise, surprise ... this user systematically altered informations about identification of weapons in crimes !!! See [4] [5] [6] [7]. Seeing thus I can only recommend to check informations about weapons in each case before creating new urban legends. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. IP Special:Contributions/70.66.13.54&offset=&limit=500&target=70.66.13.54 has the same edit style [8] and wow Special:Contributions/96.54.224.159&offset=&limit=5000&target=96.54.224.159 IP active mission since 2011 & talkpage ;-) next IP is Special:Contributions/104.128.253.21 with changing weapon info here. + Special:Contributions/104.128.253.2 All this IPs are located in British Columbia, City: Nanaimo or Victoria
Tom, if I understand your concern, you think an IP editor inserted a fact that was basically never questioned and has now been accepted as fact without actual proof. After some quick web searching I think we might be suffering from a Wikipedia effect. As you indicated, the IP editor inserted the information here [[9]]. I've been searching for references that support the SLR's inclusion and found a number that note the rifle was used but so far all date from after the above insertion. Thus it opens the question that sources and articles talking about the subject have reviewed this article, quoted the claims and now we can, in a circular fashion, cite sources that support the claim. But if we could trace their citation chain back they would be citing Wikipedia. This is definitely a potential issue and perhaps one that should be raised on the Port Arthur page assuming no RS prior to March 2012 can be found. Springee (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
That's right. Sources for the Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 should not be younger than 2012 or better 2010 to be reliable. For the already located IP an Wikipedia:CheckUser might be recommendable. Wrong informations are picked up and reported f.e. here. Exactly this ends up in having wrong informations in references f.e. in L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle#cite_note-22 here. This ends up in a need for critical checks for all this crime related articles. Connecting crimes to weapon groups as done in Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_used is less critical. To do this checks in RFC's for firearms-articles is somehow not the best option. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This is pretty significant. Do we even have a credible source that specifically states this rifle was the weapon used in the Port Author Massacre? Syr74 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You could try the court transcripts. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
At this point, I would say that we have strong pre-2011 support for "AR-15". –dlthewave ☎ 22:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Tom found a court document that mentioned the SLR [[10]]. So at that point I would say at least we have a non-blog/forum source. I understand court testimony isn't always "reliable" but at this point I'm satisfied that at least the claim wasn't invented around the time it was inserted into the article. We might still be seeing some Wikipedia effect with reporters seeing the fact here then reporting it based on what's here but that isn't an issue so long as the referencing isn't circular. Springee (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Aussies did not blame a specific gun for the attack and demonize it like the Yanks do. They simply banned ALL semi-auto rifles as a result. Therefore, the specific guns used were irrelevant. What's happened is many years after all was said and done. American politicians and media rediscovered that AR-15 was used and pointed to the Aussie gun ban as the solution to the so called gun problem. If anything, the Aussies were more concerned with the use of the SLR which was still used by the Australian Army at the time. Now we have editors who have decided that it is their mission to add criminal use section to every firearms article that they can get away with. And, even if they lose today, they will be back tomorrow with another rfc, and then another and another until they win.--RAF910 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You lost me completely there with your final two sentences. Not constructive at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Almost no AR-15 coverage seem to include either Port Arthur or the named law. Yes, you can find some sies out of the millions of AR-15 mentions -- but it is a tiny percentage. Googling for AR-15 I get 41.2 Million hits, and if I add port Arthur I get 167,000 -- less than 0.4%, even with some of those are Port Arthur Texas. If I go to a good RS BBC.com, AR-15 got 17,300 hits and +Port Arthur got 7 -- a 0.04% rate. Going to WashingtonPost.com I get 12,100 versus 22, for a 0.18% rte. So -- mentioning AR-15 in the Port Arthur article may be due, but it is just not significant the other way around. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an issue I struggle with. Weight is easy to establish when RSs talking about the subject of the article mention a claim (articles about Mustangs talking about idiot drivers crashing when leaving Coffee and Cars events). What about cases where the subject of the Wiki article is mentioned in an article about another subject (Mr (name here) has a big Mustang collection)? This is a matter of weight that should be worked out. Project Firearms provided guidance by suggesting weight be limited to cases where the impact was more than just the crime (a significant legal change for example). As I said before, I think it's odd that a RfC similar to this one said do not mention the use of a blue Chevy Caprice in the DC snipper attacks (strong opposition) yet the gun used in the same attacks does mention the crime on it's page. It seems logically inconsistent to me but I haven't looks to see if the inclusion on the gun page was ever challenged. Springee (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Current sources do not support statement: A number of editors have said the proposed statement is well sourced. That may be true if we use different sources but the current sources are not acceptable for the claims being made. The first does not mention Colt or AR-15 at all. The second says "Colt AR-15" which does support at least part of the "Colt AR-15 SP1" in the proposed text. The third says AR-15 but not Colt. Sources that support the full statement are available [[11]]. If we are going to say something is well sourced we should ensure the sources actually support the claim. For what it's worth I was one of the editors who assumed the statement was supported by the provided citations. I still stand by my statement above but the sourcing needs to be fixed. Springee (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

AR 15 is one of 3 Guns which were named in court for the Port Arthur massacre: "AR15 semi-automatic .223 calibre rifle and FN, commonly called an SLR military style semi-automatic .308 calibre rifle and a semi-automatic Daiwoo twelve gauge shotgun". Protocol (19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996) For me this gives the idea that the court was not interested to identify any submodel of this weapons. For this RFC one of 3 guns is less significant. Even less significant, because the Port Arthur massacre is already mentioned in AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime_and_mass_shootings --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

A source for the Colt AR-15 SP1 carbine, serial number SP128807, would be found in "The Port Arthur Shooting Incident", Australian Police Journal; December 1998. Problem: I don't have this source and it isn't to be found online. It's my understanding that it's available in many libraries in Australia. I'm going to see if ILL works internationally. Geogene (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean "The Port Arthur shooting incident; Australian Police Journal; December 1998: pp. 207-228." ??? Very interesting. By the serial Number I found KEITH ALLAN NOBLE: MASS MURDER Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (E-Book with 718 Pages). At p. 29 "A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION " and more Info. Addtional reading with Stewart K. Beattie: A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages) If this Infos are reliable, parts of the story have to be rewritten because of partial debt of australian officials. I suggest to wait here till the authors have done their job in the article Port Arthur massacre (Australia). If you want to thank for the help of WP:Firearms to check and find sources for the article Port Arthur massacre here or in any press releases (comparable with the press-releases which blamed WP:Firearms) will show up in future. Interesting to see if mentioning of this scandal connected to the Colt AR 15 article will still be on the top-level-wish-list of crime and politics-related writers or other party’s. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"Stewart K. Beattie; A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages)" appears to be a self-published source by a conspiracy theorist. I looked at it briefly, so I could be wrong, but that was my first impression. There are apparently other theories out there that Bryant was "framed" or some such. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Well lets just see how it works out in Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics. The Book you mentioned is absolutely reliable concerning the technical details (which are not available in other sources). Conspiracy (aka POV) seems to be a problem in all sources ... depending from which side they come. We will do our best to prove the truth. Any help is appreciated. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Update & Info: there is a problem with a central source/document of the article. Pls. see Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Problems_with_used_sources_of_the_article --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Update & Info: as there are still many deficits in the article I added an additional request for help in this project part of wikipedia in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion: You can forget about this case because of proven deficits in the linktarget

Hello Colleagues, I am very sorry to come to the conclusion that you can forget about this case because of proven deficits in the linktarget. Since more than two weeks I did my very best ([12][13] [14] [15] [16] etc.) and asked for help at multiple [17] + [18] + [19] + [20] + [21] + [22] etc. corners of this project. There are proven deficits in the article about Port Arthur massacre. Nobody went for it or dared to improve this article - me either. Notabene: it can not be the job of wp:gun to do wp:cleanup for wp:plt or wp:crime&CrimiBio. By this I can only suggest to close this RFC rejecting the case due to the deficits in the mentioned crime article. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: - Well, should the Port Arthur/Colt AR-15 SP1 content be added or not? I see today it has been re-added, apparently based on consensus. But that is irrelevant if there is an issue with the sourcing. - theWOLFchild 19:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The only sourcing issue in that sentence was "SP1 Carbine" which I've removed. The rest is well-sourced and unrelated to the concerns raised at Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia). –dlthewave ☎ 20:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
If we removed material simply because of "problems" in a linked article, then every wikipedia article would have to be blanked. No article is without flaws, but those flaws don't propagate upwards to any article that discusses the same material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
no problems or well sourced ? somebody must be joking. see "reliable sources often mention the weapon in articles" has a probem as is has been pointed out in:
Multiple colleagues see Problems with: WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Most of those links are just you asking for help on various talk pages. None of them are related to the statement and sources that we're discussing here. The sources provided here directly support the fact that the massacre led to the passage of regulations. What exactly is the SYNTH/NOR/PTS concern? –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
If you read the links ... once more: I just looked it up once more in https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary definitions from there are:
  • "Primary Sources

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.

  • Secondary Sources

Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research."

Main source of port of article "Port_Arthur_massacre" is invalid because legal documents. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I still don't understand. Why are we supposed to care about the sourcing of Port Arthur massacre (Australia)? This is a discussion over the sentence proposed for this article. None of the sources are legal documents. All the sources for the proposed section are independent secondary sources. Though I don't agree that it should be included, it definitely meets the requirement for verification. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Village pump discussion on "Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle"?

Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Here. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: I've closed that. And please learn how to properly hold a WP:RFC. If editors wish, I will turn the above conversation into a proper RFC with an appropriate question. --NeilN talk to me 22:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I had actually dropped by the VPP page to request a close. Waleswatcher, aside from forumshopping, VPP is, to quote the big box at the top of this page, "not the place to resolve disputes (emphasis is not mine) over how a policy should be implemented." Mr rnddude (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Sorry, but I don't understand the objection here. The question I asked in the village pump is not the same as the debate over an edit I made to that section. I acknowledge they are related, but they are clearly not the same. Nor is there any dispute to resolve. The question is what the policy should be with regard to that subsection - WP:SYNC or something else. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Waleswatcher: My understanding is that you're trying to clarify whether or not WP:SYNC is a policy that requires the use of summary style in this section, is that correct? –dlthewave ☎ 23:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Waleswatcher: "That subsection should briefly summarize the AR-15 style rifle page, as is standard. The most important elements of that article should be mentioned (if briefly)." "Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a (verbatim or nearly so) copy of the lead of its main article AR-15 style rifle, as per WP:SYNC." Don't be wikilawyering here. Anyone familiar with the situation can see it's a re-framing of the same point. Figure out how to implement SYNC using this talk page. --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):@NeilN: - perhaps you could review the existing discussion and straw poll entries to determine if there is already a consensus supporting Ww's requested edit? Then perhaps this can finally be done with, one way or the other. - theWOLFchild 23:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: No, sorry. I don't think it's good practice for one admin to both judge consensus for content and be implementing sanctions in the same area. Too much "judge, jury, and executioner" for my taste if I have to sanction an editor for editing against a consensus I declared. --NeilN talk to me 23:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: "If editors wish, I will turn the above conversation into a proper RFC with an appropriate question." OK, please do so. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: Being careful not to invalidate the responses, I will stick closely to your original wording:
Should the Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle subsection briefly summarize the content on the AR-15 style rifle page? Specifically, the relation between such rifles and the Colt version, some details on variations, how widespread they are, and most especially their use in mass shootings." --NeilN talk to me 23:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe the question I asked on VPP is better because it's more neutral - it doesn't mandate any specific content, just that the section summarizes the lead (added for clarity: irrespective of what it says). And if these two are indeed so similar, it shouldn't hurt to use that one. But, I defer to your wisdom. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, as posted that question would likely result in an ambiguous response. Consider my position. Based on the history and context of the article that section explains the link between the generic AR pattern rifles and the Colt AR-15 (tm). I support that current scope. That means I would say yes to part of your question, the relation between such rifles and the Colt version, maybe to some, some details on variations, (to the extent that they are different that the original Colt patents) and no to material about crimes/controversies that are related to the generic pattern rifle but not the Colt produced rifles. So such a question wouldn't answer the issue here. Thanks Springee (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Springee: I can't substantially change what editors have already replied to. You can certainly provide a nuanced response and the closer can find consensus to include certain material only. --NeilN talk to me 00:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
<edit conflict> @Springee: Whereas with the VPP version (if this section should copy the AR-15 style lead verbatim) you could simply vote no. Anyway, I realize I'm at least partially at fault for creating this messy situation. Apologies for that. (In my defense, it's not as though wiki policies and guidelines and venues and RfCs and VPPs and ANIs are so easy to navigate...). Waleswatcher (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN - fair enough I get why you wouldn't evaluate the consensus, but as for having someone do it, as opposed to starting another RfC... wouldn't that make sense? There has already been a great deal of discussion and debate over this particular edit, with numerous editors taking part. Instead prolonging this, even trying to start it all over again, I'm thinking that perhaps the consensus to add the edit, or the lack of consensus to add it and just keeping it out, might already be found on this page. Maybe you, or someone could request an uninvolved admin or experienced editor from ANRFC to review this and it could be resolved now, instead of potentially weeks from now. Just a thought. - theWOLFchild 00:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
If the RFC doesn't draw in any new responses after a while then editors can consider asking someone to close. --NeilN talk to me 02:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Waleswatcher, your RfC had a lot of issues but it also had a strong point, the question was black and white. I would summarize your question as, "Y/N; should the section in question be a summary of the generic rifle article?" I largely think that question has already been answered above but that is at least one part of a good RfC. I do get your comment about Wikipedia being hard to navigate at times like these. Often the best way to learn is to see how others do it and largely copy them. You can also ask involved editors to help formulate the question etc. Asking an involved editor (on either 'side') avoids issues of canvassing. My self serving suggestion here would be to let this one go. Their is plenty of fighting friendly constructive debating left to do at the AR-15 style rifle page. Springee (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

AR

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

So what is the reason for not saying AR stands for Armalite Rifle in the lead, it not its name an important feature of a product?Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering the same myself. I was truly surprised to see it removed, with an ineffective Edit summary. One complaint I have heard from gun enthusiasts about those wanting increased controls on guns is that such people are ignorant, and don't know what they are talking about, and even think that AR stands for Assault Rifle. Why not make sure they do know the truth? HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually a reason was given (I did not see it until after I posted this) that it is because the TM name is AR and not Armnalite.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
This conversation is becoming silly. I DID NOT say no reason was given, so there is no point you saying "Actually a reason was given". The reason given, the Edit summary, was "Returned to earlier version.". Sorry, that's not a reason. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
OK then allow me to say it is a different way. My objection was because I saw no reason why it was removed, I have now seen a reason why it was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colt_AR-15/Archive_4&oldid=1227929200"