Talk:AR-15–style rifle/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

opinions on why mass shooters choose the AR-15

Currently, the article only quotes one view on mass shooters' motivations for choosing ARs, and it's almost certainly a minority view. Personally I'm not sure this article needs any views like that at all - it's inherently speculation and not particularly relevant - but if we are going to discuss it, we need to represent the mainstream (and rather obvious) view: that shooters choose ARs (and similar rifles) because they're really lethal. There are at least tens of sources saying that, but User:Springee reverted my attempt add such a view. Springee, care to explain why? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the mainstream view should be represented prominently. The Atlantic source is a good one. –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the opinion of media members and gun control advocates should not be given prominence over the views of researchers on the subject. This is just a repeat of the previous discussion. Springee (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that A gun shop owner and instructor is a researcher on the subject either. But I do not agree wit the OP, in fact I agree with the sources this is almost certainly the reason...it is the way the gun is marketed, as a means of shootings lots of rapidly moving animals.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We previously discussed this. One was identified by several RS's as an expert. The other is a criminologist. Springee (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

They are called experts, not researchers, and we do not dismiss a view that is predominant (as the OP claims) or even prominent enough to be quoted by the same RS as the "experts" just because it has not been identified (by the media) as an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The criminologist would be a researcher. Again, this is a debate that we already had and came to a consensus about. I don't see a reason to reopen this. Springee (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That is why I said gun shop owner and instructor. I am not reopening it, I am saying that your claim that people who are are not "researchers" should not be given prominence over "researchers" is not valid as it least one of the quoted "experts" is not themselves a researcher (or perhaps it might have been better (for both of us) to say academic).Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see the concern. Yes, I didn't mean that both people cited by the RS were researchers. Rather, one is a researcher but both were said to be experts. Sorry for the confusion but I think we are in agreement. BTW, thanks for you help on the material above. Springee (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We never came to a consensus regarding this, and in any case everything in the article is always up for evaluation, so please stop attempting to suppress the discussion. There is an obvious point - AR-15s are much more lethal than handguns or shotguns. So when mass shooters choose them (for whatever reason, the motivation isn't actually relevant to this point), they tend to kill lots of people. Shootings where lots of people die are high-profile and get a lot of attention. That explains this whole debate very simply, and it's a widespread and mainstream view reflected in many RSs. We cannot leave it out of the article per UNDUE etc. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Then find the experts that say as much. Also drop the accusations of bad faith. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It does seem awfully odd that we're excluding a broadly held, widely reported opinion that AR-15s are used in shootings with more deaths because they're better at killing masses of people than pistols. Think about the vegas shooting. The discussion of bump stocks, long range rifles and high capacity magazines carried on for weeks. You simply could not have committed that crime with a handgun. This is notable and due information. Excluding it because it's not been researched by academics (as it's a "the sky is blue" sort of statement) seems rather like WP:TEND in practice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The way it is written now comes off as WP:WEASEL and is begging for a tag. Do the opinions of commenters matter? PackMecEng (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The OP is asking for material to be added for balance, and what he wants to balance out is attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, which would seem to be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also just to make sure I am on the same page, they are refering to this edit correct? PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it was this edit [[1]]. The edit with "However" is being discussed above and I think we are all generally in agreement there. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I was not sure which of those they were referring to. It fits either which is why I went ahead and mentioned it. For the future it would be helpful for them to post what edit they are commenting on. The "other experts" is dubious at best and seems just tacked on the bottom to give balance to uninformed views. Again actual experts in the field disagree with those and media commontators personal opinions are meaningless. So I would stick to WP:FALSEBALANCE as an uninformed minority view given to much weight. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Firstly false balance only applies where there is a clear distinction between fringe views and mainstream, there is not here (as there is no clear definition of what the mainstream is, and no having the media declare you an expert is not a valid criteria after all it is media opinion that is being criticized here). Secondly, not is is not about that edit as far as I know. It id about the reason the gun is being chosen, which that edit is not about. We do not have to have experts, opinions just have to be notable. When a source quotes three people we can use all three. No where in policy does it say "only experts allowed".Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If WW or those who want other POVs on the topic find expert sources saying as much then we should include them. Back when we first discussed this I said as much. The problem is trying to add non-expert opinion to balance expert opinion. I would be more open to this if we had several experts and we were balancing their views. Also, at some point this really should be part of the mass shooting article rather than the AR-15 article. A mass shooter might pick say the Sig MCX for basically the same reasons they would pick an AR-15. They aren't the same rifle but would be largely interchangeable in context. Even an AK pattern rifle may be. Thus the question becomes why use a magazine feed, intermediate caliber, semi-auto rifle vs a pistol. It becomes a topic for the mass shooting article since it wouldn't be specifically confined to this article (even if many sources say "AR-15" when actually meaning more generically magazine feed, intermediate caliber, semi-auto rifles. Springee (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The obsession with the minutia of gun design as if it were significant when people die seems a uniquely American quirk. I'd suggest an international audience couldn't care less if any "generically magazine feed, intermediate caliber, semi-auto rifles" weapon would be just as deadly when people are using this one to murder dozens of people in a single go on the regular. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We have articles about the crimes for people who are interested in the details of the crimes etc. We also should be specific about things like if the gun is an AR-15 vs something else in context of the AR-15 article. People from New Zealand after all are right to point out when it was say New Zealand vs Australian military units that distinguished themselves when fighting for the British. But to much of the world the difference may not mean much. That may be an extreme example (and forgive me if you feel it wasn't a good one). Regardless, since we have primary topics on the individual crimes and mass shootings as a whole this information would be far more germane there vs here. Springee (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

So why then do we need someone elses opinion as to why they are being picked? Either the debate as to why they are being picked is relevant (in which case all viewpoints noted by RS have to be present) or it is not (in which case none should be.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about we keep the Hazen/Blair material on motivations, but add something like this:

The high degree of lethality of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, particularly when used against civilians, may account for their role in so many deadly shootings.

with the Atlantic article (plus many more, if needed) as a source. That way we are not so much balancing opinions on why it is chosen as articulating a widespread view on why AR-15s keep showing up in the deadliest shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If it is about balance it should be worded the same, as an attributed opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• As others have pointed out, "balance" means representing all viewpoints that are prominent in reliable sources. There is no requirement that these be "expert" opinions, and in any case the relevance of any particular expertise is debatable. An expert in the design and use of weapons may not necessarily be an expert in criminology, and there's also no reason why a gun control group can't have expertise in this area. Instead of analyzing who is and isn't an expert, the standard practice is to present all significant viewpoints.

The opinions presented in a news report are considered the opinion of the news organization, backed by their editorial board. These aren't the individual personal opinions of journalists. –dlthewave ☎ 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If indeed that's Wikipedia's policy - that we should represent all views prominent in reliable sources, regardless of the percieved expertise of the author - it nullifies User:Springee's objection entirely, since the viewpoint I attempted to add is far better represented in unquestionably reliable sources than the one currently in the article. Springee, if you disagree that is the policy, can you please point to the wiki policy on experts that supports your position?Waleswatcher (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Weight would dictate here. The article text is getting to motive for using a particular gun. We have experts (as identified by external RSs) stating why the weapons are selected. We don't use lay opinions to balance expert opinions. We aren't saying, "here are reasons sources have proposed for why the rifle is picked". We balance the views of subject matter experts. Currently we don't have many expert views and I'm open to adding more so long as they are expert (RS identified, researcher etc). Springee (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, when you assert "We don't use lay opinions to balance expert opinions", can you please point to the wiki policy that supports that? Thanks.

If it's about weight as in number of sources, there is no contest - the view I attempted to add is very widely expressed compared to the one in the article now. Also, the text I proposed above ("The high degree of lethality of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, particularly when used against civilians, may account for their role in so many deadly shootings") doesn't actually refer to the motives at all, and is certainly a widely expressed view in many, many reliable sources. Do you have any objection to it? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, context matters. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The claim being made in the article is mass shooters are selecting this rifle because of ___. So now we have to ask if that source is reliable, not in general, but for the specific claim being made. That is why we use experts and researchers as sources for specific claims. Then we go back to WP:WEIGHT. We don't give much weight to lower quality sources even if the belief is widely held. Take the example of the Ford Pinto. Many sources will say the Pinto Memo was a cost benefit analysis trading the cost of improved safety for the cost of fighting lawsuits. We have fewer sources that get the actual details of the memo and it's significance to the engineering of teh Pinto right. However, those sources that do are often the ones that provide the most detail and supporting references etc. So do we give more weight to the masses who are simply repeating common knowledge or more weight to the scholars even though they represent a smaller volume of work? Here we have only a few sources (thus far) saying why mass shooters select particular guns. We also have a lot of non-expert opinions. But those can't be considered RS's for the claims being made thus they don't get much/any WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I find this extremely perplexing as there was no support for this in the past or see any now. WW edit clearly stated "Other experts" the source makes no distinction to this, so that would make it OR. The source included also does not make the distinction "gun choice is because of extreme lethality", further OR.

• WW "if we're going to discuss the **reasons** for why the AR-15 plays such a big role, we must present the mainstream view as well as the alternative view (which was the only one mentioned as it was". What do you claim is the "the alternative view "? Can you provide support for your claimed "mainstream view" supported outside of journalist sensationalism and speculation in the media?

I assume this is what he is using for this substantial claim.

• journalist James Fallows "What is this gun? Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose?"
• Journalist Tim Dickinson "the AR-15’s emergence as the main implement of mass murder last year"

This is what a expert on crime and guns looks like, a criminologist on the same footing as Fox, and a 25 year SWAT officer with the job titles Munitions Specialist and Armorer.

• Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally.
• Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert.

I would point out your so called balance is covered by the incorrect media speculation weapon of choice, and this is why you have a expert view on choice selection. -72bikers (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as this claim "As others have pointed out, "balance" means representing all viewpoints that are prominent in reliable sources." Your side has repeatly and I mean repeatly denied RS's content with even expert support. Shall I provide the diffs? Slateersteven and Whalewacher have for weeks tried to make this same claim (shall I provide the diffs) that experts recognized were not experts and that then current news cycle (which are no longer being published) journalist sensationalism and speculation were mainstream facts. -72bikers (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs. Please provide them on the appropriate noticeboard or strike the accusation. –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what are you claiming?-72bikers (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"we should represent all views prominent in reliable sources, (regardless of the percieved expertise of the author." This part is nonsense and would speak to contradicting policy.)

• Published Feb. 14, 2018 USA Today "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research:"[2] In the last 35 years 13 mass shooting with the AR-15 specifically. So we are now going to include this as it is extremely relevant to the AR-15 article -72bikers (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Or how about this[3] "Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,” "Handguns, particularly semiautomatic ones, were used in 62 percent of all incidents". -72bikers (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Book 2016 "A very common misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014) clearly shows that mass shooters weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns" [4]. -72bikers (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns. [5]. And there are many more-72bikers (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As to this "These aren't the individual personal opinions of journalists." That is blatantly incorrect a journalist speaking in his own voice are just his opinions unless he is repeating a quantifiable fact supported by data. A substantial claim based on ones views are undue unless this person is recognized as a expert in the area. I find that stating a expert is no different than just some random journalist problematic. I feel confident this view is not supported in any policy and I would ask to present this claim.-72bikers (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the WP:UNDUE policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." –dlthewave ☎ 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's really crystal clear - and I don't see a single word about "experts" anywhere in there. User:Springee, can you salvage your objection in view of wiki policy? If not, we'll need to either delete the material about motivations entirely, or add the mainstream view. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I know the policy, I have repeatedly brought it up when content I have shown like above was being denied from the article. It has nothing to with what WW tried to include into the article. He misrepresented experts as well as made claims the source did not support. So it is unclear how policy has anything to do with the OR issue at hand. -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WW you basing your policy interpretations on everything editor Dlthewave says is irrelevant, he does not make policy, he does not enforce policies. -72bikers (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: That's correct, I do not make or enforce policy. I was quoting a policy at your request. –dlthewave ☎ 01:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I made no request and editor WW is co-signing your words as if they are policy. Perhaps you should speak to that. -72bikers (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: You said "I feel confident this view is not supported in any policy and I would ask to present this claim." I quoted a policy that, in my opinion, supports my view. I can't speak for Waleswatcher but I assume that they took my words as policy because they are a direct quote of the policy. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"WW is co-signing your words as if they are policy." Those words are policy, they are a direct quote, and if we're going to discuss it at all they require that we include the widespread view on why the AR-15 keeps being involved in the deadliest shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We do include the Mayors against guns claim, we do include the claim most mass killings are not wit AR-15's.Slatersteven (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You would seem to believe compiled data and expert analysis needs to be countered with media sensationalism speculation. They are not claims those are facts. The article makes this claim "characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crime" (by the media, which is incorrect) hence you have experts "shooters' gun choices familiarity, copycat effect." The claim that the copycat effect need to be countered with media speculation is nonsense, and they already claim weapon of choice. You are just trying to dredge up a old claim that has already been disproven. You are simply trying to counter content you dislike with much more content you do as stated in the past.-72bikers (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No I have replied to the points people have made, I did not raise this issue, someone else did. Also (as far as I know) I have never said we should claim these to be facts. As to what I believe, I believe that if policy says "all notable experts" we go with that, if it says "all notable opinions" we go with that. What does policy say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit break 30 Sept

Coming back to this. Bearing in mind the crystal-clear wiki policy provided by dlthewave

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

are there any policy-based objections to adding the sentence

The high degree of lethality of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, particularly when used against civilians, may account for their role in so many deadly shootings.

or something to that effect? This is indisputably a "significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable sources", but it's not represented in the article (while another, less prevalent, view is). Waleswatcher (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:DROPIT: This has been addressed as part of a noticeboard discussion as well as here more than once [[6]]. You simply don't like the answer. I've offered a policy based objection and your failure to address it while asking "are there any policy-based objections to adding..." is WP:REHASH (part of WP:TEND). Springee (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your "policy based objection" was that you claim we must quote "experts" (defined by you) - but evidently you simply invented that "policy", since you've repeatedly failed to link to it after being repeatedly asked to. I cannot address a policy that doesn't exist, and appeals to fictitious policies have no weight in these discussions. As for the noticeboard discussion, that was on a different topic. This is related to the material we have already included (the quotes from Hazen etc) and the material we therefore need to include to balance it, as required by the wiki policy I quoted above. If you don't like my proposed wording, please propose an alternative. Or, we could consider simply deleting the Hazen etc comments. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please review 02:47, 27 September 2018. Also please review WP:REHASH as it applies to your behavior here. Springee (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a pointless forum discussion until there are some citations put the words, and the words check out against the citations, and the citations check out against reliable sources – I'd specifically caution that WP:MEDRS is likely applicable here, I seem to recall that being brought up at WP:RSN before when we were discussing an NYT article that was deemed unsuitable for the claims being cited –, and then further check out against the plethora of policies and guidelines that are going to be cited by the editors that are here. For example high degree of lethality is puffery. A bullet to the head is almost always lethal regardless of firearm type or round calibre. Shooting yourself in the foot usually isn't. This is a timesink. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This has been explained to you, if you fail accept, so be it. -72bikers (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, 72bikers, your personal opinions (about what is and is not "puffery", about lethality, etc) are simply irrelevant (as are mine, for that matter). The fact of the matter is that we have an overwhelming number of RSs that espouse a point of view that is not represented in the article. That contravenes wiki policy and therefore cannot stand. If you don't like the language I proposed to address this, please propose something else so we have something to discuss. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• The current version fails to cover all significant viewpoints, which is unacceptable. That is why this is being discussed. Since we can't read the shooters' minds, we only have theories to explain why they chose a particular weapon, and policy requires that we present all of the prominent theories. –dlthewave ☎ 14:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really. We have no RS showing alternative views. Remember that we already covered why lay opinions aren't sufficient on this case. In short we don't have other "significant" points of view. Springee (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We have many RSs. I added one to the article recently. You removed it. Now you say there aren't any?

Anyway if that's the objection, it's very easily dealt with (there are many, many such sources). Is that in fact the objection? Waleswatcher (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you aren't listening. You didn't add a reliable source for the claims you are attempting to add. This is going nowhere. Springee (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The title of the article you removed:

Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal

Quotes from the article:

Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose?

and

...this particular weapon is so unusually effective in killing things—even when compared with other firearms.

My proposed paraphrase:

The high degree of lethality of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, particularly when used against civilians, may account for their role in so many deadly shootings.

Now, you claim this isn't a source for the claims I'm attempting to add? What are you talking about? You're not making sense. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The author is not a criminologist nor a cited expert. There author's opinion on why a criminal picks a particular weapon has no weight on this context. We went over this before but you are refusing to WP:DROPIT. Springee (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making the basis of your opinion clear. The Atlantic magazine is obviously a RS per wiki standard. Your opinion here - that the authors of RSs must be "experts", apparently as judged by you - explicitly contradicts the wiki policy quoted above, and has no support from any other policy. Therefore it has no weight in this discussion.

Now, are there any actual wiki-policy based objections here? Waleswatcher (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Policy-based arguments were made, a widely-publicized RFC was held, and a consensus was reached that any material on lethality should be sourced only to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Here's a link to the discussion, in case you've forgotten: [7] Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sensationalized journalist speculation of a then news cycle, that you attempted to mislead readers with ("Other experts believe") does not make a significant viewpoint. I fail to see (as I am sure many agree as we already covered this) how sensationalized speculation is needed to balance the actual facts and expert analysis, you claim to be "less prevalent, view". It has been proven already (even when well covered) with the weapon of choice claim that media speculation can be factually wrong. -72bikers (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support version prosed by Waleswatcher, per WP:DUE. To Springee, WP:DROPIT. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I'm not the one trying to WP:REHASH old discussions. WW's frequent attempts to revisit and reinsert material that they failed to get into the article earlier in the year is WP:TEND. DUE only applies in cases where their is WEIGHT behind the proposed material. There isn't in this case since the sources are not reliable for the claims WW is trying to make. Springee (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly rejecting such content is WP:TEND. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It would be WP:TEND if the rejection was simply removing it and saying "don't like it". Not the case here. The policy based issues with the content were discussed the first time this topic was brought up. They were brought up when the material was discussed in connection with the related noticeboard discussions. They were brought up earlier this week. It's not TEND to reject the same material for the same solid reasons just because one editor doesn't want to drop it. Springee (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Ok, Waleswatcher linked to the source they'd like to use for this material. That is this the Atlantic article. Great, now I actually have something to look at.
  Issue 1: TheAtlantic is not a MEDRS and so cannot be the sole source used for medical claims – how lethal something is, is a discussion of medical science – per this RSN discussion and thus subject to those much stricter requirements. To quote the close: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure". A better, MEDRS complaint source, is required. For the record, that was a very large RfC with a couple dozen participants. A discussion here cannot override the consensus established over there. I bring this up because this effectively what is being attempted.
  Issue 2: All of the same criticisms I had for the failed NYT proposal – here – on wound characteristics apply to this source as well. One of the specific sources I used in that discussion was authored by Vincent Di Maio, a pathologist and gunshot wounds expert,[8][9] who writes on pg. 156 of the 2015 edition of Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques[10]: "The wounds produced by this round (.223 / 5.56 NATO) are, in fact, less severe that those produced by lower-velocity hunting ammunition such as the .30-30, a nineteenth century cartridge". This explicitly contradicts the central premise of the source – [a] little bullet pays off so much in wound ballistics – which is that the smaller, faster ammunition is significantly more lethal than larger, slower ammunition. I recall stating that this claim is: cherrypicked, UNDUE and incorrect. Not least of all since the NYT article, which too failed to pass muster, also said; [m]any factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. If the central claim collapses under the slightest scrutiny, then I can safely assume that the article as a whole does. My comments back then were cited to a combination of MEDRS and general RS, but I don't feel like rehashing a thousand words of citations to numerous sources once again. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - this isn't about lethality per se, it's about dealing with the fact that the way the section is written now blatantly violates WP:DUE. We have described (at length, given how short the section is) only one specific minority opinion regarding why shooters seem to choose the AR-15 and/or why AR-15s are involved in so many recent deadly shootings. I don't agree that the Atlantic article is not a reliable source for lethality, but I'm not particularly interested in arguing the point because it's somewhat peripheral. What I would like to do is find a way to resolve the problem we have in failing to represent the mainstream view. To those opposed to the wording I suggested, do you have any suggestions that could helps? Waleswatcher (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the argument against the lethality of the AR-15 seems to be that any given bullet from a small-caliber semi-auto rifle may be less harmful than any given bullet from a hunting rifle. The difference is that you can fire many, many more bullets out of the former than the latter (as demonstrated during the Vegas shooting). Being able to plink off 30-100 rounds before reloading and with no bolt action, compared to eight or so from a 30-06 with a bolt action is something that substantially increases the ability of the gun to kill many people (colloquially its lethality.) This isn't a fringe viewpoint, nor is it a controversial statement anywhere other than the middle of an NRA rally. If the debate is merely the word "lethality" then, again, we've gotten into somewhat Kafkaesque territory wherein a major mainstream view of the gun, that it is effective for mass-killing people because of its inherent design, is being ignored because of an argument over one word. Let's just solve this one, OK? Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WW's proposed addition isn't about lethality specifically. That topic was discussed a month or two back. The current material is discussing why shooters pick AR-15 type rifles vs other firearms (including other semi-auto, intermediate caliber, magazine fed semi-autos). Currently we have very few sources that have the expertise to answer the question. This was discussed last time this specific topic was discussed. I'm in favor of additional sources (as I was when this was previously discussed). The problem is we need sources that are reliable for the claims being made. Since we are now speaking towards the motivation of someone, (as opposed to stating general, factual differences between various firearms) we need sources that are qualified to reliably provide that information. Of the current two sources, one was identified by more than one independent source as a qualified expert to provide the opinion. Another is a criminologist and against identified by news sources as qualified to provide the opinion. I agree that there likely are other reasons why the guns are selected but we need the sources that actually provide that information. The Atlantic article doesn't meet that standard. A nearly identical discussion regarding the same content occurred last June here [[11]]. Springee (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Who said guns that fire a more lethal bullet has a slower rate of fire than the AR-15? I never heard an expert say that. There is popular hunting rifles that shoot the 308 as fast as the AR-15. Afootpluto (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment in reviewing the related material on the US mass shootings page we ultimately solved the disagreement by removing much of the content. [[12]] I'm not sure if a similar solution would work here or not. Perhaps rather than trying to shoehorn false balance (lay vs expert opinion) into the article we can propose how to trim material out? Springee (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been no valid reason presented to remove, alter, or balance content with the claim that journalist are experts and able to make a analysis of criminal intentions. Are we really debating this?

This is simply a attempt to remove content WW dislikes as stated above. The Blair and Hazon content in the article speaks to the weapon of choice claim. How is something used to balance content, then needs further content to balance it? That's nonsense. Its funny how he never mention Blair as if to dismiss his added weight. He has repeatedly said incorrectly there analysis in the article states the weapon is not lethal. When in fact all they contend in the article is perceived lethality, neither seen as overly lethal or lacking lethality for there weapon selection.

The claim to some would be mainstrean view because a mention of a then news cycle of a journalists sensationalized speculation, I would also point out is full of errors and fallacies, such as "mainly choose" and "the main implement of mass murder", facts have proven not even close. What we should be discussing is the removal or altering of the "weapon of choice" claim (such as incorrectly claimed by the media), now that we have irrefutable facts that state not only is it not the weapon of choice but handgun are used 3 times more often. So the would be claim that more mainstream views like this, made by sensationalized journalist speculation of a then news cycle, no matter how many times repeated are not facts. -72bikers (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If we delete the sentence

Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific characteristics but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.

it would at least resolve the BALANCE/DUE issue. That's very far from an ideal solution - it leaves the reader completely ignorant of the mainstream view on why AR-15s keep showing up in these deadly shootings - but at least then the article would not be in blatant violation of wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No reason to include the view just because reporters and lay people think it's the case. We don't do that in other articles unless it's to point out a popular misconception. To include other points of view all you need to do is find experts who have alternative points of view. Springee (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Springee, what you write above directly contradicts wiki policy:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

The Atlantic, the New York Times, and other major media outlets are obviously RSs on mass shootings. Please stop spreading mis-information and referring to policies that do not exist.

Now, to try to move forward. Above you suggested removing some material. What material specifically do you propose we remove? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You are simply wrong on this point. It doesn't contradict policy because policy says weight is based on coverage by reliable sources AND the reliability of a source is based on context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). So all you need to do is go find sources that say something different AND are authoritative enough to make the claims in question. We don't use lay reporter opinions as reliable on matters such as medical issues or physics or engineering. The same applies here. If you want to propose adding something to the effect of "Media sources have argued these weapons are picked for X but experts Y and Z say this..." that is one thing. You can not use non-expert sources to support an opinion that would require an expert. It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim otherwise. Springee (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And why is a medical professional not an expert on wounds they have treated?Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to review the noticeboard discussion that decided on that topic. Springee (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why indeed. And to add to that, this is not purely a "medical issue or physics or engineering", it's an opinion on why AR-15s keep showing up in very lethal shootings. There are no "experts" on that, because it involves everything from criminology to guns to ballistics to medicine to psychology. This allows you to claim that every source you don't like, no matter what it is or who wrote it, is not an expert.

Now Springee, can you please be constructive and respond to this? "Above you suggested removing some material. What material specifically do you propose we remove?" Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And we do not get to reject an expert opinion because we think it is wrong. This has been a problem here for a while, only certain kinds of experts are allowed. There is not justifiable reason why medical professionals cannot be considered experts on gunshot wounds (after all they have seen them, rather then a set of tables).Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To WW, you are correct it isn't a medical issue. Rather it's one where psychologists or criminologists would be the best experts. Basically you need someone who can answer what another person was thinking. So far we don't have that. Most of the sources just focus on what harm an AR-15 could do and sometimes why that hard is worse than a handgun. That information is used to imply why the weapon was picked but such conclusions are truly speculation. Your bad faith accusation of "please be constructive" isn't needed. Please look in the mirror. All you need to do is find sources that include experts speaking to why shooters pick their firearms. We have the lay opinion, that's the "weapon of choice" statement.

To SS, you are correct, we don't get to reject expert opinion because we think its wrong. We do get to reject non-expert opinion when someone wants to use non-expert opinion to counter balance expert opinion. The gun shoot discussion was taken to a noticeboard. Springee (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Springee, can you please be constructive and respond to this? "Above you suggested removing some material. What material specifically do you propose we remove?" Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I opened that up as possible. I'm not interested in offering proposals. I'm sorry you are making bad faith accusations rather than finding material to support the the content you want to add. Springee (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your comments making it more and more clear that you're not interested in working together to improve the article. This looks like WP:TEND, specifically this and this. Please try to be constructive. Will you at least comment on my proposal (to delete that sentence), since (after yourself suggesting it in the first place) you refuse to offer one of your own? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Springee, are you going to respond on the substance? Do you oppose or support removing that sentence? If you oppose it, why and what is the alternative suggestion you referred to ("in reviewing the related material on the US mass shootings page we ultimately solved the disagreement by removing much of the content")? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I opened the door for proposals. If you have a specific proposal make it. Springee (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• I posted a notice at NPOV Noticeboard to attract wider input. –dlthewave ☎ 13:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

AR-15s/assault weapons and mass shootings

I'm looking around for sources on the lethality of semi-automatic rifles in mass shootings that could be used to address the DUE/BALANCE problem we have now in the article. In addition to the one I added just now, here's a source, based on research by Louis Klarevas:

ompared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths. Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.

It would be useful to find something that computes the fraction of mass shooting fatalities due to assault weapons. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• The material you added here [[13]] seems more appropriate for the Mass Shooting in the United States article vs this one since it conflates assault weapons and AR-15's specifically. I would also suggest trying to go to the source research paper(s) vs a news clip about the research. Finally, it doesn't really balance the other material (but might have weight independent of that) because it doesn't speak to why shooters are selecting the weapons which is specifically what Hazen and Blair are discussing. Springee (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Large capacity magazines may be a contributing factor to the rising number of fatalities per event, because they allow each shooter to conveniently carry and rapidly use an increased number of cartridges. It is unfortunate more journalists don't report such details as the number and capacity of magazines used in mass shootings, because such data might provide a better correlation than handgun/assault rifle percentages. That aspect of mass shootings might better be described in the magazine (firearms) or high-capacity magazine ban articles rather than this article to recognize such magazines are available for many different types of firearms. An internal link within this article might be appropriate to avoid implications that such magazines are unique to AR-15 style rifles or that all generic AR-15 style rifles have such magazines. Thewellman (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns concluded that 25% of the weapons used in mass shootings were assault weapons", so shall we remove everything that is not specifically about AR-15's?Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the subject of this article is AR-15 style rifles, it doesn't seem to be the appropriate place for all statistics about mass shootings or assault rifles. The sport utility vehicle article would similarly be an inappropriate place for all traffic collision or vehicular homicide statistics, despite criticism of SUV design features causing unfortunate consequences in vehicle accidents. Thewellman (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth the recently added source seems to contact Gius's own words here [[14]]. That's a discrepancy that needs to be explained. Springee (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess by "contact" you mean "contradict"? If so, what contradicts what? I don't see anything contradictory in there, I suspect you're not reading carefully and conflating gun crime overall with mass shootings. As for the material I added, the quote is a direct quote from Gius, and the article accurately summarizes his work (I know because I read it). So you'll need to be a lot more specific. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The link Springee provided and the study which it cites are both about the overall murder rate. The 2014 and 2017 studies come to a different conclusion because they focus on mass shootings. The Pacific Standard mentions all three studies in context. Does this address your concern about the apparent discrepancy? –dlthewave ☎ 02:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WW, yes, contact vs contradict was a swype error. My explanation is below. Springee (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Serious question. Is the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) a reliable source? I'm not an American and haven't heard of them before so I don't really know. They've written a long and detailed article specifically discrediting the research conducted by Klarevas[15] being cited here. I came across this on accident while googling, of all things, Gius' 2014 paper. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It's Dr John Lott's organisation. I would take comments there to be Lott's opinions. So if he disagrees with Klarevas it would be a case of two experts disagreeing. Springee (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Springee. So both sources would have about equal weight in terms of RS. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Btw, WW, the CPRC article does split up mass shootings committed with assault weapons vs with any firearm in the article. The assault weapons share is smaller in nearly all cases – before, during and after the FAWB. For example they use Klarevas' data in the first graph concerning the "number of mass shootings" split between assault weapons and all weapons: 6/19 before the ban or 32%, 2/12 during the FAWB or 16%, and 5/35 after the end of the FAWB or 14%. Then you have the second set of graphs concerning the "number of mass shooting deaths" which using Klarevas' data they find the split between assault weapons and all weapons to be: 44/155 before the ban or 28.3%, 20/89 during the ban or 22.5%, and 59/309 after the end of the ban or 19.1%. The CPRC also uses Mother Jones' data set, and their own data set for comparison as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

A recent addition has been reverted with no explanation beyond "challenge discuss before restore": "Studies from 2014 and 2017 by economist Mark Gius concluded that while they played only a minor role in overall gun crime, assault weapons like the AR-15 were a key element in mass shootings: fatalities due to mass shootings were lower during both the federal and state assault weapons ban periods, and 'when the assault weapons ban, state or federal, was in effect, the number of school shooting victims was 54.4 percent less than (when it was not in effect).'" (source) This seems to be a relevant and well-sourced piece of information; are there any specific objections that we can discuss? –dlthewave ☎ 01:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

See my comments about that edit above. I think the material needs to be pulled at least for the moment. It doesn't appear that the article cited is likely true to it's source material. My link above suggests that the study author would probably not agree with the way the cited article was summarizing his conclusions. A critical mitigating point the cited article left out which is part of the 2017 paper's abstract is, "Although assault weapons bans may reduce the overall number of school shooting victims, the average reduction in murder victims may be less than 10 per year. Hence, it is unclear if gun control is the most appropriate policy to use to reduce the number school shooting victims."[[16]] Additionally, it's not good material to balance what we had for a couple of reasons. The first being the author doesn't seem to talk about AR-15's at all, at least in the 2014 article (I don't have access to the 2017 paper). It does talk about assault weapons but doesn't say "AR-15" anywhere in the document. The cited source seems to have added that conclusion on their own. Second, what is this meant to balance? The wiki article has a sentence stating that the AR-15 is considered to be the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. That opens the question, why do mass shooters pick the AR-15 vs any other gun? So far we have only Masan and Blair offering explanation as to why the AR-15 is or is not picked by mass shooters. That access to assault weapons was found to increase the number of school shooting deaths doesn't address "why do school shooters pick this weapon". Springee (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"My link above suggests that the study author would probably not agree with the way the cited article was summarizing his conclusions." Huh? The quote I added is a direct quote from the author! Also, I read the original sources and the article looks like an accurate summary to me. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WW, We have two authors here. We have the author of the PS article that was your citation (Tom Jacobs). We have the author of the actual studies (Mark Gius, mentioned in your addition). The material you added contained a 54% stat but Jacobs didn't include Gius's full statement (my Gius quote above). Your edit also said, Studies from 2014 and 2017 by economist Mark Gius concluded that while they played only a minor role in overall gun crime, assault weapons like the AR-15 were a key element in mass shootings: fatalities due to mass shootings were lower during both the federal and state assault weapons ban periods,. That does not align with the 2014 study nor Gius's own words.[[17]] In the blog post Gius states, " I also found that during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban period (1994-2004), state-level murder rates were 19 percent higher than they were in the non-ban period. " The 2014 article never mentions AR-15s but it does say, ". It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. " So yes, I would say the material added to the article distorts what Gius found in his research. Springee (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: You are conflating different studies that reached different conclusions because they covered different things. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "That does not align with the 2014 study nor Gius's own words." Wrong, it's precisely what Gius' study concluded. Again, I know because I read Gius' study and that's what it says. You are probably again confusing overall murder rate with mass shootings. If you insist, tomorrow if I have time I'll paste some direct quotes from Gius' paper, even though that goes beyond what wiki requires (it's a primary source, not a secondary like the Jacobs article). Waleswatcher (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not conflating the fact that we have no evidence that Gius ever says "AR-15". Also, please review this Rand article that includes a discussion of Gius's and other studies. Based on other information I've found I do not trust that the PS's summation can be trusted. The PS left out the mitigating information that Gius included in his 2017 abstract and adds the AR-15 to the discussion in a way the Gius did not. Rand study [[18]]. You seem to be confused about primary vs secondary sources. Per WP:RS academic papers are typically considered the best sources we can use, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Also, we still have the issue that none of the content we are discussing speaks to why a mass shooter picked an AR-15 so it doesn't address the balance issue you are concerned about. Springee (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep asserting Jacobs is misrepresenting Gius. That is false, and all the "evidence" you've provided is no evidence at all, because you seem to be incapable of distinguishing statements about gun fatalities in general from statements about mass shootings. As for primary/secondary, it is you that are confused. I suggest you read WP:RSPRIMARY. As for the balance issue, I agree this does not fully address that, more is coming. Finally as for AR-15 style rifles, as you know full well they constitute a large fraction of all the assault weapons in the country, and a very large fraction of those used in mass shootings. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Jacob added a discussion of AR-15s, Gius did not. Jacobs didn't include the part where Gius said the total number of lives saved was estimated to be under 10 etc. But none of that matters because the Gius papers aren't about AR-15s and thus don't fit into the article as you were trying to use them. And since you are confused about the use of journal articles directly vs via a biased reporter... please read WP:BESTSOURCES. Springee (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Jacob added a discussion of AR-15s, Gius did not." What are you talking about? Where is the discussion on AR-15s added by Jacobs? As for sources, you're simply mistaken. Read the quotes I posted on your talk page, we shouldn't clutter this discussion with it. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.. This specifically says the peer-reviewed articles are generally considered the most reliable sources. If you don't believe me try posting the question at WP:RSN. As for the AR-15 comment, where does Gius talk about AR-15s (not assault weapons laws, AR-15s). Springee (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong. If you'd just read a few more lines down you'd find Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. Gius' paper is a primary source by definition, because it reports something that had never been reported before (a basic criterion for a peer-reviewed research paper, FYI). It is not a review, monograph, or textbook, it is original research. Jacobs' article, by contrast, is a secondary source.Waleswatcher (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't read this correctly... Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. I must have missed the part where it says we should take the interpretation of a paper from a random web reporter vs from the paper itself. Springee (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

First off, "random web reporter" sarcasm aside, yes, that actually is what it says, and for good reason. Second, Jacobs' summary of Gius' results is accurate and you've failed - after multiple requests - to provide any evidence for your assertions to the contrary. As far as I know I'm the only one here that's actually read all the sources in question, including the original Gius articles. You on the other hand are just conflating things, or inventing them out of whole cloth ("Jacob added a discussion of AR-15s, Gius did not"). Waleswatcher (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems we are here again, your failure to read/comprehend what is said doesn't mean I didn't say it. Since you don't understand a basic premise of WP:RS, I would suggest you ask others since you don't want to read the policy or believe me. Springee (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Look - what precisely in Jacobs' article is not an accurate summary of Gius' work? And where did this mysterious "Jacob added a discussion of AR-15s, Gius did not" claim of yours come from? (If that was a mistake you made, why not just say so?) And did you notice that the strongest part of the sentence I added is a direct quote from Gius? How can that possibly be a misrepresentation of his views? Waleswatcher (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The Gius studies would makes sense in the Mass Shooting in the US article. They do not work here if for no other reason than they talk about "assault weapons laws" not "AR-15s" and they do not address the question, why do mass shooters pick an AR-15 vs other rifles. Springee (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous source and studies that sate the weapons ban had little affect on shootings including gDr.Fox. And how is a professor of economics a authoritative figure on mass murder?

His current study being referred to published last year states "Gius' 2017 study focused exclusively on school shootings. Focusing on the years 1990 to 2014," and just on school shooting. So for those saying only current data from just the last couple of years is relevant are now saying a study from 2014 on just school-shootings by a economics professor are ok and a study on all mass shootings by Dr. Fox a criminologist from 2014 is irrelevant?

The 2014 one only covers 1982 to 2011 and it shows no conclusion or data. Also again how is this more significant than the Dr. Fox 2014 study?

Springe is right that he does not support this and actually contradicts it. "economist Mark Gius concluded that while they played only a minor role in overall gun crime, assault weapons like the AR-15 were a key element in mass shootings: fatalities due to mass shootings were lower during both the federal and state assault weapons ban periods."

He also goes on to say other factors could be at play besides the AR ban. "First, such laws are one of many factors influencing school-shooting deaths." -72bikers (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dr.Fox [19] "The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings."

Dr. Fox [20] "the FBI, the Congressional Research Service and various nonprofits, they calculated that mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year." "About one of those incidents, on average, takes place at a school," they said. "Fridel and Fox found that four times more children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today." "Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple-victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving four or more victims and at least two deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant," the researchers found. "Of these, eight are mass shootings, or incidents involving four or more deaths, excluding the assailant." -72bikers (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So is he talking about assault weapons or AR-15's. if we can use general comments about shootings for one "fact" why not for all?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

List of mass shootings

Not sure we rally need this.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to: AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history,[64] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[65] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[65] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to that I'd suggest it's relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is what I am referring to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223, those are all extremely notable events in which the use of AR-15 style rifles got a lot of coverage. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but I am not sure we need a list, or come to that a line that may well end up out of date the next mass shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that somebody watching this page will update it if that happens. I, of course, hope against hope it will not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That is why the MOS usually expects us to edit in past tense.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's a do-able edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have a question. There are six of these mass shootings, yet we are naming five. Why? what's the sixth. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall either I or someone else made a very similar point a while ago. Another reason to remove the list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: what's the one you're missing? Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to go back and check (too busy right now), but it's probably the Pulse nightclub shooting. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, please insert ASAP. I disagree with removing this piece as I think it's notable and due, but I agree that it shouldn't be incomplete if it's up. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The SIG MCX is not an AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK will do later, or someone else can. For now one link just in case, which says "each SIG MCX features an aluminum KeyMod handguard, AR-style lower controls and polymer magazines", and lists the mag type as "AR-15". Slatersteven, it is according to its manufacturer (at least it has an AR style lower receiver and magazine), see that link. There are many other sources that also characterize it as AR-style. Anyway I'm not even certain it's the Pulse shooting that's missing, I have to check later. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And it will get reverted by someone [[21]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes misrepresenting the facts is not ok. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The controls and pistol grip are AR familiar, similarities are mainly cosmetic. The operating system is similar to an AK, the bolt and recoil system is a serious departure from anything else, you can swap barrels in under a minute with a quick-change barrel, the buttstock folds to the side. It is not marketed as a AR and reviews in the industry do not consider it a AR style rifle. It has more in common with a AK than a AR being that the resemblance with the AR are superficial. -72bikers (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

5 or 6

A source cannot have said both, this smacks of OR. The source lists 6 shootings, but many subsequent stories contradict the claim the Orlando shooting was with an AR-15. This needs a serious rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be getting tripped by "not an AR-15" and "not an AR-15 style rifle". Most of these weren't AR-15s. Sandy Hook was a Bushmaster rifle, San Bernadino and Stoneman Douglas were M&P-15s, and Las Vegas was a dozen or more different rifles. I think that the Sutherland Springs shooting was the only one that involved, or rather was stopped by, an AR-15 specifically. I don't know enough about firearms to make a comment on whether the SiG MCX constitutes a AR-15 style rifle, and based on the BI article you linked, it seems the link might be a bit tenuous. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

except that most (all the ones I have looked at) are specifically described (and marketed to a degree) as AR-15's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense to include reference to these major shooting events involving AR-15s. I'm 100% OK with a rewrite as long as we capture the information. But to avoid OR, how about we change it back to six (per the source) and then state including: x, x, x, x, x - that way the missing one is noted in absence but we aren't contradicting the source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Because that makes no sense, we say 6 and list 5. If we include this it must be what it is, as an opinion and not a fact. But then we also need to explain the discrepancy as well, and that is too much detail. This is far to complex to do Justice to in what should be one paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The SIG MCX uses the AK Operating System. -72bikers (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are attempting to shoehorn the MCX into a AR. Unlike other MS that state when a AR style was used the nightclub simply states Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle. -72bikers (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd suggest perfect is the enemy of good here. We have a start. We can improve it. We don't need to purge the whole sentence, which is reliably sourced, just to do that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And we're not trying to shoe-horn anything. Just to report the statements of reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked the source and it does list Orlando as the sixth shooting. So yes, Pulse is the one. As for whether the Sig Sauer counts, we have a reliable source that says yes. If you want for WP:BALANCE you could include a statement from another reliable source saying "but X says the firearm in the Pulse shooting was not AR-15 style." Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Even articles that are demeaning to the rifle state "It’s important to note that the Sig MCX is not technically an AR-15 variant. The guts of the Sig MCX are different from those of the standard AR-15 platform". -72bikers (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We should say (as we have a contested claim) "according to X".16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Journalist generally do not have any knowledge of firearms. So if a few journalist have stated the MCX is a AR its just a uneducated opinion. I do not believe repeating ignorance is beneficial to an encyclopedia and its readers. It would also appear as grasping of straws to keep the distinction of the filtered claim weapon of choice. -72bikers (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the claim stems from the Florida Police.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

How much you believe Journalists know about the minutia of gun manufacture is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And for us to consider the claim to be contested first we need a RS that contests that claim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

[[22]], [[23]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd question using the Blaze as a WP:RS but the NBC source is righteous. I suppose we could say "and the Pulse Nightclub shooting (ref) - though this is contested as, while the Orlando Police described the weapon as an AR-15 style weapon, the manufacturer disagrees." Again I find all this hair-splitting a bit silly. This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither the business insider, nor CNBC are either NBC or the blaze.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow this statement "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour" just speaks to a condemning bias to firearms. Some of use feel that actual facts matter. -72bikers (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The Sig MCX may look like an AR-15, but they are extremely different. Afootpluto (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The business insider article is a re-print of an article from the Blaze from what I saw. That said, I've no problem with the second source. And my personal opinions about firearms are neither here nor there and I'd kindly appreciate if 72bikers would avoid casting aspersions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Why are we discussing this again? This was discussed at both WP:NPOVN [[24]] and [[25]]. As Nightshift32 said in the NPOV discussion Pretty definitive. Business Insider also reports this [2]. CNBC says "But not all recent mass shootings involve the AR-15 or its variants. The massacre of 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, for instance, was carried out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a semi-automatic rifle that is internally distinct from the AR-15, despite its similar look." [3]. Tampa Bay Times [4]. - links are live in the archived links. 6 is not correct which is why the article said 5. Springee (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If there's an article that says 5 of the last 10 instead of 6 of the last 10 and if 6 is incorrect can we just update to the correct source and say 5 of the last 10? This is getting kafkaesque. There's no good reason to exclude the highly over-represented frequency of this gun type in extreme mass shootings from the page just because the LA times quoted a police department that disagreed with the categorization of a firearm from the marketing department of the manufacturer. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We have RSs that say the 6 of 10 is wrong since one isn't an AR-15. That fact isn't in dispute. It's not in dispute that the Orlando shooter used an MCX. MCX != AR-15 so any reasonable editor can see the specific claim is wrong. However, the other 5 crimes verifiable used an AR-15 type rifle. We can either throw out the entire source due to the fact that it has a verifiable error or we can WP:IAR and use the source to back the 5 of 10 and perhaps add a note to the citation explaining the error. Springee (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Are there more than just this one source supporting this claim? I would point out the source does not explicitly state AR rifles have been used in 6 of the ten deadliest shootings. Also why would there be a source disputing a fictitious claim if no one reported it to begin with. -72bikers (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiple essential elements (lower receiver, controls, magazine) of the Sig MCX are AR-15 style, according to its own manufacturer. That suffices to make the Sig an AR-15 style rifle according to various reliable secondary sources, and that's obviously a reasonable and defensible position. Other secondary sources disagree, also reasonably. It's a matter of opinion, since "AR-15 style" is not defined. So, either we change the wording ("AR-15 style or similar rifles" for instance) or just mention that the Pulse shooting was with a rifle some regard as not AR-15 style. What's the big deal here? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

What are you basing this on "Multiple essential elements"? Your track record on such matters are anything but stellar. The manufacturer and the industry does not make any claim to the MCX being a AR style rifle.

The big deal would be you are trying to use this to claim weapon of choice when all facts actually contradict. -72bikers (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a kind of Synthesis, do the manufactures call it an AR-15 style rifle? As I have suggested the easiest way is to attribute this claim to the source, then it does not matter if it is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The source is factually wrong. When we have sources that are shown to be wrong we typically throw them out. We don't include there information as correct when we know it isn't. Why are we even having this discussion now given it was addressed months back? Springee (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a matter of perspective, what makes a rifle an AR-15 style rifle? I think we can say it is contested, not that it is incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Similar, yes. But not the same. The fact that the operating mechanism is very different makes it not the same. The ignorance of the reporter isn't a reason to ignore the error. Springee (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this being discussed again? This was discussed months back. Why are we revisiting the question? Springee (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

OK then we stick with the edit that was agreed six months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:IAR and use the source to back the 5 of 10 and perhaps add a note to the citation explaining the error. This solution is 100% something I would support. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I support adding a footnote saying that the article said 6 by including the MCX as one of the 6. That footnote can then cite sources saying the MCX is similar but not an AR-15 style rifle. Springee (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I also support this solution without reservation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Which source would we be using for this? "5 out of ten" is currently sourced to LA Times which does indeed list five shootings, however their list includes Orlando and excludes Parkland {Stoneman Douglas). –dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

We use the LAT source but we WP:IAR, report 5 of 6 then include a footnote saying the Orlando shooting used an MCX. We could say that it was initially reported as using an AR-15 but that was later corrected. I think last time we discussed this we said the LAT article established why we would report this particular time period and "of 10" vs "of 12" or "x in the last 10 years" or what ever. Springee (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It includes Parkland in the text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have come across this source [26] The Washington Post. They do a pretty good job clarifying the weapon of use.

• "On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle."

• "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles."

• "points out, the MCX is a modular rifle designed to be able to change between a variety of calibers and “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form." -72bikers (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

CNBC [27] They state MCX is not a AR-15 and do speak of other shootings that did use AR's but still not a list like LA Times.

The Business Insider [28] states not a AR, they also state that this shooting was a terrorist attack. They also state that because of the error first reported by the police was the reason many publication reported AR.

The Blaze [29] "Islamic State-supporting killer" and "It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an “AR-15-style assault rifle” and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping “style” from the description."

The Mother Jones list also states just semi-automatic rifle SIG MCX as apposed to the other semi-automatics rifle stating AR-15 when AR's were used.

There are many other most deadly lists and while one or two mentions of guns used none make the distinction like the LA Times with AR-15 uses. So while being incorrect they also lack any support from any other publication. -72bikers (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My view is we should say 6 out of 10 because that's what the source says, and then add a footnote saying that Pulse shooting was a SIG MCX which is arguably not "AR-15 style", with a citation or two for that. However if the consensus is to do the reverse (say 5 out of 10 with a footnote saying the source says 6 because it counts the MCX as an AR, but other sources disagree) I'm willing to compromise, just so long as it's clear that one can reasonably regard (and some sources do regard) the MCX as AR style, rather than implying it's just an error. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: To be clear, the 6 of 10 source has been shown to be wrong since the correct number is 5 of 10. This means the source fails as RS since it has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps we should just remove the source to avoid putting false information in the article. It isn't OK to say 6 and correct with a footnote since readers who skip the footnote won't understand that such information is incorrect. Springee (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, that's simply not true. It cannot have been "shown to be wrong" absent a precise definition of "AR-15 style rifle", which does not exist. As I pointed out above, even the manufacturer of the MCX describes on its own website several of the basic components as "AR style" and makes a point of how they are interchangeable with other AR style rifles. However there is also a significant difference with (say) the Colt AR-15, and so (absent a precise definition) there just isn't a clear line one can draw. That's probably why there was this disagreement/confusion in RSs and as per wiki policy that should be reflected in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree, which is why I say take it out. It is clear some people think it is an AR-15 style rifle, others disagree. Is there a definitive and official criteria for what is an A%R-15 style rifle?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with taking it out. I think people would like some similar text there. It does serve a purpose in the article which is to help setup why we should discuss the AR-15 and mass shootings. I'm fine with taking it out but I think it would just lead to some other argument in the future. I think "5 [footnote: MCX was misidentified as Ar-15 in early reports (sources)] would also be fine. Springee (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we do with out it, both by pointing out its prominence in recent shootings and the fact it is characterized as a weapon of choice for this type of crime. Of course we could always replace 5 (or 6) out of 6 with "many" or even "around half".Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We got to this language in the first place because "many" was considered by some to violate NPOV, or be too vague, or various other objections. Isn't going around in circles forever so much fun? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I know, I was there. But you are correct, consensus was for this wording, because some eds would not accept a more vague version (that frankly fitted the sources and situation better). I am sure I even made the self same arguments). But what we now cannot do is suddenly decide the source is wrong, if you never questioned it at the time. I think this is going nowhere, and as this was a long standing consensus edit it must stay as is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit history here and at the related article shows the source was questioned when it was first added. Springee (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, so what is the solution, more text and footnotes? Or do we go for less precise wording?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with using the current text but with 5 of 10 then add the footnote. This appears to be the conclusion of the NORN discussion. Springee (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also fine with that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not (see my comment just above), but I won't object if that's what the majority wants - at least as long as the footnote makes it clear that it's a matter of opinion, and there is disagreement, on what counts as "AR-15 style". Waleswatcher (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What if we say the MCX used in the Pulse shooting was initially reported to be an AR-15 by police and thus in some sources? This can be supported by the articles that correct the mistake but while noting the differences were immaterial to the crime. That sidesteps the "is it really or not" issue. Springee (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I've changed the text back to 5 and added the footnote regrading the MCX vs AR-15. I hope this works for all. If not please revert and we can discuss further. Springee (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

10 Oct Edit Break

I made a minor edit to the footnote, which Mr rnddude reverted and I've now restored as per my edit summary. On further investigation however, I'm starting to think we should go back to the 6 out of 10 language in the main text, and use the footnote to explain the controversy. See for instance this, which explicitly states that the SIG MCX is "a descendant of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and that the "AR-15 Style Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree", which makes it clear that the author isn't just parroting some other source and knows the relevant facts. Since reliable sources apparently disagree on whether or not to consider the MCX AR-15 style, it seems to me we should just report what they say and not try to take sides. I think given the rules here I'm within my rights to change back to 6/10 since that was the long-standing language, but I'll wait for comments in case there is a consensus against that. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Misidentified is more accurate. I don't have a source handy but I recall the media discussing why they originally said AR-15 based on statements from police. If RS's say the original reports say misidentified then that should cover it. I'll Grant that it takes little away from the footnote to say "identified" vs "misidentified". I prefer Mrrnddude's version of the text as more accurate. It is incorrect to say the MCX is an AR-15 style rifle as defined by this article. While the MCX was designed to use the same NATO standard magazines and have similar controls, the operating mechanisms are different as are critical parts such as the receiver. An AR-15 upper can not work with an AR-15 lower (the part that is legally the gun). Sure, if we zoom out enough it can be considered AR style but the same logic would apply to the AKM if we zoom out enough. That's a slippery slope. Springee (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article starts: "An AR-15 style rifle is a lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the Colt AR-15 design." That appears to be the same definition used by the source I quoted above that concludes the MCX is AR style, and by the source you yourself added, the Washington Post article that also says the MCX is in the AR family. So it's obviously a matter of subjective opinion precisely where to draw the line, and what "based on" means. Since reliable sources disagree, we should report that disagreement and not take sides in wikivoice. How is that controversial? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please quote where the WP article that starts with, "The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15" says the MCX is an AR-15. Springee (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The quote is in my edit summary. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That quote doesn't really support your edit given the article starts by saying AR-15!=MCX. Springee (talk)

I agree if we are using the source we should say what the source says, and in the foot note say why they are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not the SiG MCX is an "AR-15 style rifle" has absolutely no bearing on whether it's an "AR-15". Both sources say unequivocally that the firearm used in not an AR-15. The Washington Post article you quoted says: While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles. What part of that says that the MCX is an AR-15? Hint, none of it. The Business Insider article even says: So how did the weapon become erroneously classified as an AR-15? and answers It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description. Oh, and I've left Waleswatcher a DS reminder on their talk page. They did not seek consensus prior to reinstating challenged material. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You're confused. It was Springee's edit that changed the long-standing language, and could be reverted to the original unless there is a clear consensus for it, not mine. As for AR-15 vs AR-15 style, our current text says "AR-15 variant", not AR-15s. I'm fine changing the footnote to simply say that not all the six were AR-15s, but AR-15 variants. And yes, RSs disagree on how to classify the MCX, thanks for making my point again. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in the footnote has the word "style" or "variant" appeared. It's not there. The footnote says AR-15: Early reports on that shooting [mis]identified the rifle as an AR-15. No style, no variant. What was stated there previously, is precisely what both cited sources assert. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The facts are this. Some sources identified the rifle as an AR-15. Some identified it as AR-15 style or variant or in the AR family. Some called it an AR-15 in the headline and an AR variant in the body. Some identified it as a Sig MCX and added that the MCX is AR style or AR family or AR variant. Still others identified it as a Sig MCX and said that means it's not in the AR family. Do you dispute any of that? If not, it's simply a matter of wording things to reflect this (rather minor) disagreement in RSs. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources that specifically address the question say the MCX isn't an AR-15. Other sources conflate the two. There is also a scope aspect, the zoom out I mentioned before. Sig clearly wanted the controls to feel familiar and the magazines are NATO standard (same as AR-15s). However, the fact that a MCX lower can not accept an AR-15 upper should be a clear sign they aren't the same. This rifle is not just some other company mfg another Colt AR-15 copy with their own name on it. Springee (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Some sources identified the rifle as an AR-15 vs Some sources erroneously identified the rifle as an AR-15 (which is what both sources state, unequivocally). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The wording as it stands is potentially misleading to the readers, and does not accurately reflect the sources.-72bikers (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, WP:PRECISION would suggest we should refer to it as a misidentification - after all, it was a mis-identification. But WP:VER says that when sources disagree, we should present a balanced view rather than editorializing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The confusion is clearly clarified in the reference, that because the police (which they admit to) made a mistake is why the media reported this error. It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description.

Extended content

This is all of the content discussed in the sources on the MCX and AR-15. The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15 Police Department said the gunman’s weapons included a pistol and an “AR-15-type assault rifle.” On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle. While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles. “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.” While able to shoot the same caliber ammunition — .223 — as an AR-15, the MCX was initially meant to fire a round called a .300 Blackout. The key difference, however, between the standard AR-15 series of rifles and the MCX is the operating system AR-15 used a system called “direct impingement.” The MCX, however, is known as a “piston gun,” meaning it uses gas piston technology to operate the internals of the rifle. Mikhail Kalashnikov’s AK-47 series of rifles also uses a gas piston system The gun the Orlando shooter used wasn't actually an AR-15 However, it turns out the Islamic State-supporting killer didn't actually use an AR-15 The terrorist was actually armed with a Sig Sauer MCX carbine sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form. So how did the weapon become erroneously classified as an AR-15? It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description.

This reflects it was not a disagreement but simply a error made. -72bikers (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so here's the question: did the reliable source that made the claim retract that claim. Remember, when a reliable source is wrong, so is Wikipedia; it's not up to us to adjudicate truth, only what is reported in reliable sources. If the RS retracted the claim it was an AR-style rifle it's easy. It was a mis-identification and WP:VER presents no obstacle; but that's the question that I don't recall being answered. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think retraction is a requirement to show that a claim made by a RS was inaccurate. In context of say the mass shooting article this error wouldn't matter any more than it would matter if we lumped Chevy and Ford trucks together when talking about truck owners speeding more than car owners (a controversy I just invented for this discussion). However, in context of this article it matters just as we wouldn't say the Sig MCX was used in 6 of 10... Springee (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

All I'm looking for here is for us to include the reference to the frequency of use of the AR-15 in recent mass shootings (notable, reliably sourced and encyclopedically relevant) - so if consensus is to include a note that the source erred in calling the weapon in one of those six mass shooting an AR-style weapon, I'm not going to be dying on that hill, so long as we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But this conflict has gone to multiple noticeboards and dragged on here for weeks and all that seems to have happened is that we've all tied each other in knots. I guess what I'm asking is, what process best supports Wikipedia policy while maintaining a mention of notable information regarding this category of firearms? Whatever that is, if it ends this debate, I will support it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"The sources that specifically address the question say the MCX isn't an AR-15." False. I gave a source above that explicitly contradicts that. Not to mention that Sig Sauer's own website refers to multiple major components of the MCX as "AR style" or simply "AR". "Some sources identified the rifle as an AR-15 vs Some sources erroneously identified the rifle as an AR-15 (which is what both sources state, unequivocally)" False. The Washington Post piece says, explicitly, that the MCX is in the AR family. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No you haven't provided such a source. The NBC news source includes a throwaway claim that the MCX is a decedent of the AR-15. That isn't saying they are the same thing. The 2005 Ford Mustang is a decedent of the Jag S-type (yes it really is). They aren't the same car. Compare that weak claim of "same thing" to at least two articles that specifically say the rifles aren't the same thing. So weigh the sources. We have sources like your NBC news article that say one has some level of relationship with the other (the same is true of basically all rifles that use STANAG magazines are at least in part Armalite AR-15 decedents). We have other RSs that specifically state the two aren't the same thing. Springee (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What, precisely, is wrong with the language as is: "The LA Times identified six shootings including the Pulse Nightclub Shooting. Early reports on that shooting identified the rifle as an AR-15. Later reports noted that the rifle was a SIG MCX". That, plus changing five back to six in the main text, is fine with me. It's factual, accurate, sourced and consistent with the sources, and doesn't take a "wikivoice" position on whether the MCX is or is not in the AR family. I think slatersteven would support that as well (they said above they prefer to say six than five in the main text). If we can't come to a consensus here, we'll have to go back to the original text without the footnote, which would be a downgrade in my opinion. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Would this be something that could be solved using WP:DR/N? Because I don't see this dispute going away without some uninvolved assistance, but spamming over personally-preferred boards isn't going to help. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

While I prefer to have the footnote say the MCX was incorrectly identified, I don't find WW's footnote text to be factually incorrect. If that is the only disagreement I'm OK with leaving it and closing this out. I'm not OK changing the article text from 5 to 6. We have RSs that specifically state the rifle was misidentified early on. We have no RSs that specifically say the MCX is an AR-15. Putting the dispute only in the footnote where few will see it isn't something I'm OK with because we can assume most readers won't read the footnote and thus will be misinformed. Absent the 5 vs 6 correction I would propose removing the LA Times source from this article. Springee (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The manufacturer explicitly states it is not a AR. The mag, trigger, safety, and grip are not major gun component no matter how many times claimed otherwise, there actually trivial and shared with many other rifles. Sig also makes there own distinct mag's for the weapons primary intended 30 caliber. Mother Jones even called it a SIG MCX not a AR-15. It would appear to date no source has been actually presented here to support a credible claim of AR. There was consensus for the change from 6 to 5, I see no consensus to change and mislabel it from 5 to 6. Agree with removing the LA Times source from this article.

I would also point out RS's state "the Islamic State-supporting killer didn't actually use an AR-15 " and "The terrorist was actually armed with a Sig Sauer MCX carbine". This would make a argument that would actually preclude it from being called a Mass Shooting. -72bikers (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, and I have to note that I honestly don't care so long as this conflict goes away without taking valid and reliably sourced references to the frequency of the AR-15 in recent major mass shootings with it, I'd point out that various Wikipedia policies cited throughout say that when two reliable sources contradict each other, we don't decide which is right and express that in Wikipedia's voice. We report both, with certain, very specific exceptions such as WP:PROFRINGE and WP:SLANDER. This is the case even if one of the sources is the manufacturer; public perception of the weapon may be just as encyclopedically relevant as marketing decisions made by a specific gun manufacturer. I am noting this mainly because you still consistently insist that Wikipedia decide which reliable sources are right when they disagree and it's making it very hard to resolve any disputes at talk. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems we may have a consensus that the footnote is OK as is. As for changing six to five, there's no consensus for the change, so I'm restoring the long-standing language for now. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I think your reversion was too hasty and you aren't listening to the concerns of others. This is an issue that has basically been a point of contention since the article was originally added here and at the mass shooting article. Springee (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon, you talk about two RSs disagreeing and including both. That is true when you are talking about say, conflicting views expressed by two experts. Economist A says the new plan will help the economy. Economist B says it won't. That isn't what we have here. We have one report that, as part of a larger article, lumped the MCX in with "AR-15s" when talking about shootings. Then we have RSs that specifically say the rifle used in the Pulse shooting was not an AR-15. These sources specifically say "the MCX isn't an AR-15 because..." What we don't have is any sources that specifically say "the MCX is an AR-15 because..." What we have instead are sources that take for granted that the MCX is the same as an AR-15. That may be more than nothing but it's weak when held against sources that are specifically addressing the question. Springee (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not OK with 6 of 10 in the article. The footnote is a compromise to address the fact that the article has an error. We can still use the article to support a grouping (the "of 10" part) but we have RS's showing the MCX claim is wrong. Since this source has been under dispute since originally added with no firm conclusion I move to remove the source. Springee (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are we debating removing information proven to be incorrect by RS? Yes it should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There was clearly consensus achieved above for the change from 6 to 5. You have now changed the content of that consensus in the article for a week for a version that has a consensus of just one. This could be perceived as disruptive. We have a RS state that because the police (which they admit to) made a mistake is why the media reported this error.

Not only is the MCX not a AR-15 but the shooting was an act of terrorism and a hate crime according to the FBI. Also the 2015 San Bernardino attack was a act of terrorism. So this would make the count 4 of 10. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll clarify why I'm not OK with having the article say 6 of 10 vs 5 of 10. Sure, we have a footnote that explains that the weapon was originally reported to be an AR-15 and was later identified as an MCX. However, people are likely to skip the footnotes. The material in the actual article text should be correct. The footnotes justify why the text was included. We should NOT include material that is shown to be wrong in RSs. Springee (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree, misleading the readers is not encyclopedic.

We could let the 6 of 10 stand and then include that it is 4 of 10 also. And we have a reliable source in the article that says 13 uses of the AR-15 in MS in the last 35 years and 4 uses in the last 3 years. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Where the heck are you getting the 4 out of 10 from? Please just the source, no text-wall. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Propose removing 6 of 10 from article

The source making the claim has been shown to be factually questionable. It isn't OK to put 6 of 10 in the article with a footnote since what we would be doing is publishing known incorrect information and then expecting the reader to find the footnote explaining that it isn't correct. The 5 of 10 statement at least addressed that problem. So as a source that has been shown to be incorrect I suggest removing it. We can still mention the 5 shootings since they can be independently sourced. Alternatively, if we can find an different source for a similar claim we should use that. Springee (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Recommend taking this to Dispute Resolution - the wikipolicy position on this is ambiguous and there are valid and entrenched arguments on both sides. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard may be the best opportunity to hammer out a workable consensus; the slow edit war has to stop somehow. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I should note that dispute resolution is a purely voluntary process; but since both @Springee: and @Waleswatcher: have made solid points and since how we report a reliable source in a situation like this is ambiguous, I would encourage both of them to consent to participation in this process. I have volunteered at DRN occasionally but am obviously too involved to serve in that capacity here. But I do hope the two of you can find an agreeable solution that will at least ameliorate the others' concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You sure that DRN is equipped for this? As I understand it, DRN is an informal procedure generally intended for small content disputes. However, we have about ten, many entrenched, participants here. There are about four things in that one sentence that are currently in dispute. Do we say five or six? Do we name the Pulse shooting? Do we include a footnote? Do we use the LA Times article as a source? Potentially there are more questions to ask. Urh. Worth a shot I guess. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If Waleswatcher and Springee can come up with a compromise they're both satisfied with, I will support it. That's at least a third of the involved editors. I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article, but that's not going to happen so I consider that a secondary concern to this specific dispute. I hope that some of the other involved editors will see things my way - in that compelling arguments have been made by Springee and Waleswatcher and that an agreement they would co-sign would be a solid compromise position on which to hang consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to hear from some of the editors who have discussed this in the past. This is one of those issues that has never really been solved despite WW's restoration of the 6 of 10 claim. This content has been disputed here [[30]], here [[31]], here [[32]] and here [[33]]. This has never been stable, accepted text. It was only fatigue that allowed it to remain for a while. I would suggest we find a different reference to sidestep the whole issue. We avoided the problem here [[34]] by saying semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or similar. I'm less OK with that solution in this article but perhaps that would be a compromise solution. We can keep the footnote discussing the issue and the text would be correct regardless of how one classifies the MCX. Springee (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution is for small disputes with two editors. This is clearly not that and please stop the aspersions Simonm223, your thoughts are well documented and do not need repeating.

I agree with the removing 6 of 10 false claim from article as in its current form it can not be substantiated.

WW has not produced even a vaguely legitimate argument, with ignoring challenges and just repeating himself. The Washington Post article in no way supports his claim, it seems like he is at this point just grasping for straw's, and looking like original research. The Post explicitly states the MCX is not a AR and also clears up why some early initial report got it wrong based on the mistake made by the police (that they later admitted and addressed).

His only source linked (since the start of this 20 days ago) is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) and the Insider reported it was based on the initial mistake made by the police.

He has now taken to just place the content in the article based on original research and consensus of one. This is starting to look like disruptive.-72bikers (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's hardly an aspersion when A) You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten, and B) I didn't even mention you by name. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Here you go... Not an aspersion when it's a statement of fact.Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Surely even you are aware what you liked to shows no such support for your claim of "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," and by not showing support of the aspersions, it is clear your actions are just civility restriction of uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.-72bikers (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

We are rather close to a compromise, it seems to me. We've more or less converged on a footnote, although we might want to edit it depending on what happens with the main text. Also there is no dispute over five of the ten mass shootings. The only issue is that RSs differ on whether to consider the MCX an AR-style rifle. So, one option would be to change the text to read something like "...used in six (or five, depending on whether the rifle used in the Pulse shooting is considered AR-15 style [footnote with citations]) of the..." or something along those lines. Springee, what do you think of that? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I see the compromise you are trying to make but it doesn't really address the reason why people have been unhappy with this from the word go and looks like a way to backdoor the Pulse shooting into this article. The proposed edit adds too much to the text into the article. Think about what this statement's purpose should be in context of the article text. It's purpose is to say "Wikipedia is talking about this because...". Adding the additional material in the text just muddles things. The purpose of that section isn't to focus on the 5 vs 6 nor even produce a list of which specific shootings used the rifle. Instead it's to hit on the controversy around the rifle due to it's use in mass shootings. To that end I'm really not sure we need to even include the list of specific shootings. The five could be linked via the also see. But I think enough people would be unhappy to see that list removed from the primary text so I'm not going to push for that change. At the end of the day we have RS's speaking specifically to the question "is the MCX and AR-15" that say no. We don't have RSs that specifically say the MCX is an AR-15. Instead we only have RSs that just followed previous incorrect reports and repeated claims without addressing the question. It's also worth noting that SIG makes an AR-15 based rifle, the SIG Sauer SIG516 and the SIG_Sauer_SIGM400. Those would fall under the scope of this article. Conversely, the MCX was developed from the MPX which was a replacement for the MP5. Anyway, I'm not OK with adding the controversy into the text itself. I think following the mass shooting article's text is a decent compromise. Conversely, let's keep the stated number at 5 since we only have 5 that are without question correct.

As a bit of a side note I think we need to keep the scope of this article in context. This is not an article about rifles that look somewhat similar to AR-15s. It was a spin off of the Colt AR-15 article meant to capture generic versions of the Colt AR-15 rifle. The Colt article describes the operating mechanism of the AR-15. That description also applies here. There are several places in this article that talk about the parts of an AR-15. Once you have a rifle that no longer operates like the Colt AR-15 it may be a related rifle but it isn't an AR-15. The M-14 is related to the M1 Garand but we don't call the M-14 an M1 style rifle. I wasn't happy with the naming of this article since I felt it didn't adequately scope the article's topic. Your attempts to push the MCX into the category of AR-15 style illustrates the point. The scope of the article when split off was essentially "Colt AR-15 clones" not "Colt AR-15 clones and derivations that have totally different operating mechanisms and parts". Springee (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Back tracking and suggesting a different compromise: Ok, I'm going to backtrack from something I just said and a reply I gave below. What about changing the text to 6 of 10, include Mr rnddude's footnote (or very similar) and then remove the list of shootings from the text? Springee (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The list of shootings is very important. In fact the use of an AR in those shootings is the most notable part of this entire article, and I suspect it's the reason the majority of readers come here. The whole mass shootings section should be expanded and moved up. Your "compromise" would overturn months of work here on trying to find some acceptable language and balance (not that it's been achieved, but this would make it much worse). So no, that's not a remotely acceptable compromise. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, if I am looking up mass shootings, that is what I search for, not AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WW, that is speculation on your part. We don't know that readers come to this article to see that list. Anyway, I suggested two different compromises. One was to use Mr rnddude's proposed sentence and footnote then remove the list. The alternative was to keep the list of five, and then change the text to follow the mass shooting article where we say semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and similar. The exact text isn't critical but the important thing is that it no longer specifically implies all six were AR-15s. The third option, which I don't think you like, is we get the source declared to be shown inaccurate then thrown out as a RS for the claim being made. That's a bit of a baby with the bathwater option but given this material has been disputed since it was originally added I don't think you can comfortably fall back on "long standing". This is simply an unresolved issue. Springee (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it's not speculation, I backed it up repeatedly with pageview evidence showing that readership spiked hugely after shooting incidents. I'm not going to rehash that again since you just ignore it and it's not particularly relevant. I've also suggested a compromise above, I'll wait for further comments on that. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

All that proves is that after a mass shooting involving an AR-15 they look up the rifle, not that this why the majority of users come here overall. I bet the mass shooting articles get similar spikes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not even relevant to the discussion, and as pointed out it proves nothing. -72bikers (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WW your claim "And we have several sources that say the opposite". WW you have claimed there are many sources that claim the MCX is a AR-15. To date (since the start of this 20 days ago) you have only produced one source and it is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) and the Insider reported it was based on the initial mistake made by the police.

This does not support a claim many sources dispute what the MCX is. Perhaps instead of telling use what you think it might be better to produce these sources, or just accept the facts. -72bikers (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• In looking at the LA Times article it's clear the writer is not careful when choosing his words or, alternatively, is trying to choose provocative terms even if they are inaccurate. Consider this phrase "the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle." By definition a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. Springee (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that as well.-72bikers (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Including Pulse

Assuming we stick with the six of ten language, we should add the Pulse shooting to the list to be consistent with the source (and just to add up to six). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• It should be five of ten since there are only five. Sources have clarified that the Pulse shooting was not a AR-15 style rifle. So why would we list it? PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• As long as we have an agreed five or six I don't care. Let's just get this wrapped up. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, because multiple reliable sources do not agree with that (see above). Simonm223, regarding your reversion of my edit, I agree there's no consensus for six over five. But there's also no consensus for five over six. Hence (until/unless such a consensus is formed) by the rules that govern this article I think we have to go back to six, since that was the long-standing language. Would you please consider self-reverting? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes they disagree because we have sources that came out right after it happened and then sources that came out later with what actually happened. The more recent and correct sources should be used and the older incorrect sources discarded per policy. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Including the Pulse shooting is clearly someone not listening to reason. We have several RS's that say the MCX is not an AR-15. We have sources explaining how the weapon used in the Pulse shooting was misreported to be an AR-15. 5 of 10 is the compromise solution. Otherwise remove the source as it has been shown to be in error. Springee (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

And we have several sources that say the opposite. That's why we need the footnote. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We have no RSs that say the opposite. What you have is RSs that in passing don't differentiate. You have RSs that still reference the original incorrect information. Springee (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• This could be seen as a attempt to include original research. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We go with what the source says, or we do not use it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm in two minds. Statements of fact: 1) The LA times states six. 2) Six is incorrect, at least as cited to other sources discounting the Pulse nightclub shooting. Solutions: 1) Correct to five, and put in a footnote explaining the error. This may be improper editorial synthesis. 2) The LA times states six, therefore we state six. However, it's acceptable practice to include an explanatory footnote noting that the Pulse nightclub shooting may not be considered an example. If we do this, we stick to the meaning of the sources. I prefer option 2, because it avoids any OR, SYNTH, or NPOV dispute that is likely to arise. Such as:

As of February 2018, AR-15 variants were the primary weapons used in six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history.

The above is merely a suggestion on how to go about sticking to the meaning intended of each individual source, without editorial synthesis to correct misinformation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not concerned with being correct – as it's a tertiary source that acts as a compendium of known knowledge – but with being verifiable. The only way to keep Wikipedia's factual accuracy in check is to use the most up-to-date and highest quality sources wherever possible. May I suggest that footnotes get separate from references, as that will reduce potential confusion. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Six is incorrect according to some sources, and correct according to some others (all reliable). For the fifth time or so, it's transparently obvious why that is: "AR-15 style rifle" is not a term with a clear definition. (Nor is it particularly important precisely where you draw the line.) Waleswatcher (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please list the RSs you feel support the specific claim that the MCX is an AR-15. This will at least allow people to judge if the source is accurate for the claim it is being used to support. This is especially important given we have at least 2 if not 4 sources. In a previous discussion here [[35]], Niteshift36 listed the following The Washington Post [[36]], Business Insider [[37]], CNBC [[38]] and Tampa Bay Times[[39]] Note that Niteshift32 is the only editor who was involved in the previous discussion but hasn't weighed in here. Since the previous discussion was about the exact same material (added to both articles at the same time) this is an appropriate notification. Springee (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

A excellent suggestion, this should have been fleshed out long ago with all of the repeated claim's of many sources support.-72bikers (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Busy IRL, but first off, that Washington Post story says explicitly it's in the family of AR rifles ("all but removes from" = logically "is in, but marginally"). Then there's the source I linked to above that says flat out it's an AR, while noting it's also an MCX. More in a bit when I have time. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles."

Saying " aesthetically similar" clearly states that's it's appearance is similar. They also clearly state "internally a different beast" that it is a completely different kind of rifle (not a AR). You are in no way going to convince others your argument is sound, trying to use the source that not only clears up the initial mistake made by the police, but then goes on to confirm the MCX is not a AR-15.

WW your claim "And we have several sources that say the opposite" seems incorrect. Your only source linked is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) one that went on the police error, as also mentioned in the Business Insider, It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description.

It is clear there is no dispute on what weapon used. -72bikers (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement "all but removing it from the family of..." means, in English, that it remains in the family. So the Washington Post agrees the MCX is in the AR family, if marginally. Then there is this NBC news piece, which says "Now a descendant of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle — a Sig Sauer MCX..." was used and refers to it as an "AR-15 Style Rifle" in the headline. I'm sure there are more (I found these immediately); these more than suffice to show there is disagreement among RSs.Waleswatcher (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That article starts with a statement that the MCX isn't an AR-15. The reason why the author wrote it was to make it clear these aren't the same rifle. It's a horrid twist of reason and logic to take that one sentence and claim that is the reason why the author is actually saying they are the same thing. Springee (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

WW you have not produced even a vaguely legitimate argument, with ignoring challenges and just repeating yourself. The Washington Post article in no way supports your claim, it seems like you are at this point just grasping for straw's, and looking like original research. The Post explicitly states the MCX is not a AR and also clears up why some early initial report got it wrong based on the mistake made by the police (that they later admitted and addressed).

Your only source linked (since the start of this 20 days ago) is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) and the Insider reported it was based on the initial mistake made by the police.

You have now taken to just place the content in the article based on original research and consensus of one. This is starting to look like disruptive. -72bikers (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the accuracy of the other incidents in reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources saying it was an AR-15 [40], [41], [42].Slatersteven (talk)

These sources highlight the issue I have with the "it is" sources. Consider we have several articles that specifically address why the MCX isn't an AR-15. These three simply don't dive into that issue at all. They don't question or address the "not AR-15" claim. Instead they simply repeat earlier claims that the Pulse shooting was one of several that used an AR-15. That means they didn't consider the question. I've said this before, consider the Ford Pinto case. We have articles that restate as a matter of fact/faith that the Pinto was a fire trap and that Ford did a cost calculation comparing the cost of fixing the Pinto with the cost of litigation. But the articles that make that claim aren't actually investigating it's validity, they are simply repeating it. In that case there were a few articles that specifically looked at that question. All said the conventional wisdom was wrong. We have the same here. 100% of the sources that actually address the question, is the MCX and AR-15, say no. The "balancing" sources simply repeat "conventional wisdom" with no support or analysis. Given we that we even have sources that say why this confusion started in the first place (early reports which misidentified the rifle) this should be an open and shut case. Springee (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

USA Today "AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX)" does not infer explicitly it is a AR-15. I would also point out this source concludes there research with the help from Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries that AR rifles were used only 13 times (as of Feb. 14, 2018) in the last 35 year. You ignore this and deny RS content from the article but try and cherry pick something of your liking. CNN "AR-15-type rifles" Time "AR-15-style rifles" just generalized comments made in a sensationalized way. It also in no way disputes the sources that explicitly state that the MCX is not a AR and why the mistake was made because of the police error, that they later corrected, so we have the police on the record saying they made a mistake calling the MCX a AR. I do give you credit for at least linking something though. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this really highlights a problem with the title of this article and its scope. Several editors are right to point out that "AR-15 style" is not a clear definition. The original scope of this article was meant to be the non-Colt brand AR-15s. But with a tittle like "AR-15 style" that does open it to scope creep. The MCX could be described as "AR-15 style" but not mean the rifle is generically an AR-15. One person says "AR-15 style" to mean similar but not the same thing while a second says "AR-15 style" meaning a generic clone of the Colt AR-15. I think the article should include some sort of scope statement and perhaps a change of title. We can revisit the discussions that resulted in this article being spun off such as this one here [[43]]. Springee (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, include: as per the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Why include when the source has been shown to be incorrect by RSs. The MCX isn't an AR-15. That fact shouldn't be in dispute. The real question, one that has been raised since this LA Times article was added, is why keep an article that has been shown to be wrong? Especially a fluff article with little to no substance? Springee (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So, they clearly claim it was one, they do not need to address why. The issue is that they claimed it was one, not that they are correct. Thus it is clear it was not "just one paper" repeating this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That would matter if we were reporting on how the rifle is sometimes misidentified or what sources claim. We aren't. We are saying what actually occurred. If we want to balance RSs stating the MCX isn't an AR-15 that needs to be done with sources that specifically address that point, not ones that take the claim for granted. Also, we have to keep in mind the scope of this article. This article is about the generic copies of the Colt AR-15. It is not about similar or derivative rifles. They have their own articles. Springee (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No we are using a source that includes it, and then altering what the source says (in effect), the source does not say 5 out of 10. It is clear that this source is not alone in that. This is not a technical discussion as to what is or is not an AR-15, it is saying what the media have claimed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I proposed a several solutions to that (as have many other editors since the issue was first raised). First, we have RSs that specifically address why MCX!=AR-15. The only thing we have on the other side is sources that just repeat "common knowledge". Basically we have no sources that say why MCX=AR-15. As for how we handle it, we have looked at a number of options. One is to simply remove that source from the article. It's not a strong source, it's a throw away, click bait type article and it has failed verification (at least 4 sources specifically address the issue) and it has other questionable descriptions (semi-automatic assault rifle). RSing rules suggest this is the best course since the facts are not specifically critical to the AR-15 article. Instead this article is used as the coatrack to include a specific list of mass shootings in the article. A second option is to WP:IAR which can apply here. That gave us the footnote that explains the error in the article while still keeping the article as a source for other information as well as justifying the "of ten" part of the discussion. Yet another option would be follow the Mass Shooting in the US article and change the phrasing so we say "semi-automatic rifles..." Thus we MCX is included in the group. But that opens the question what do we do with the list of shootings. It's not clear why this list is here and it has been a point of controversy since added. Still, there is no debate that 5 of the 10 did use an AR-15 rifle. There are compromise solutions here but perhaps we need to look in another direction. Perhaps the real solution is find a different shock value claim (that's what the 6 of 10 claim is) that passes venerability and use it instead.

But I was just addressing the point "only one source has said it was an AR-15". I have already said I think the best option is less specific wording, but if we keep this source our text must reflect what the source says, and not what we take it to be wrong about, we can then explain why their figures are wrong in the footnote.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And with three editors opposed, there is plainly no consensus for Springee's recent edit. I'm asking them to self-revert. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm OK with the less specific language option and removing the LA Times source. Rather than fighting to remove the list why not say the rifle has been used in recent mass shootings including... (current list of five)? Springee (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it is clear enough, it may be seen as implying all of them, nor does it make clear it is actually the deadliest (rather then most).Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a different article we can cite? A number of sources cite the 10 most deadly mass shootings. Do we need an article that specifically says "these used AR-15s" to say which used AR-15s? I mean it's easy to verify that a particular shooting included an AR-15. Springee (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Concur with Slatersteven it's the deadliness of this string of recent shootings that is the relevant thing, not the specific number. That's why I was supportive of "five of the ten deadliest" with a footnote - it preserves what really matters from the source. Frankly, the source allows us to avoid WP:OR while still getting at something that I think we all know - the thing that makes this style of rifle unique compared to the other weapons used by mass shooters is the number of people its users can kill. Handguns are used more frequently, but mass shootings committed with handguns don't end up like Las Vegas, and that's the thing I think is going to interest readers about this gun in relation to this issue. Likewise, outside the specific context of the US gun debate, I'd posit nobody cares if an AR-15 is an assault rifle. It's a readily available rifle that a motivated person can use to kill many, many people.

And if there's another source, I'd be 100% down with using a source that would allow us to untie this particular Gordian knot.Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hence why I say "around half", it also covers us for any minor changes in this number. As to more sources [[44]], [[45]]. But this may well change, hence why I think it is best not to specify a number.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

What about using this Time article? [[46]]. It has basically the same information but notes that the MCX is similar to the AR-15 rather than stating it is one. Springee (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So we keep 6 out of 10?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The source provided explicitly says 6 out of 10. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The source notes that the MCX is similar but not the same as the AR-15. This would allow us to use the "AR-15 or similar... 6 of 10..." in the article. I would still oppose listing the Pulse shooting since it is the "or similar". Springee (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Still dislike giving an exact figure but this is acceptable if we must.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I am entirely fine with adding "or similar" - it still captures the relevant point. And frankly, we're dealing with a category of firearms with vague boundaries in the public consciousness. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with "about half" vs "6 of 10". So are we OK with the following: Change source to Time. State AR-15 or similar (we can use language from the mass shooting article). Change "6 of 10" to... OK I can't think of the exact phrase. What if we just leave that as, Slatersteven, please suggest. Springee (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new text

Proposal 1

Proposal 1 Change

"As of February 2018, AR-15 variants were the primary weapons used in six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"

To

"AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"

That should cover us for a while.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support We might want to tweak going forward a little, but it's good enough as a starting point to get something more agreeable to consensus on the article space. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think that's an improvement, for two reasons. First, "the deadliest mass shootings" is vague to the point of making the statement wrong. If you include the top 100 the statement is probably false. If you only include the top 5 it's again probably false (because it would be more than half). Second, we debated this endlessly, and finally settled on "six of the ten deadliest mass shootings". I really don't see what's wrong with that. I do agree we can change the language to "AR-15s or similar rifles" - in fact I suggested something similar quite a while ago. If we just made that change and left "six of the ten deadliest mass shootings" alone, I'd support. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

the deadliest mass shootings is already in there, this is not new text.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It is new text because the article originally said "five/six of the ten deadliest" not "around half of the deadliest". Note the word I'm highlighting and its significance to the statement. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

For once I agree with Waleswatcher. If we look at the single deadliest mass shooting in the U.S., Las Vegas 2017, then it's 100%. If we look at the five deadliest, then its 60% – excluding Virginia Tech and Orlando – or 80% – only excluding Virginia Tech. Ten deadliest = 50% or 60% depending on source because of Orlando. Hundred deadliest? a lot less than 50%. It does need to be made clear that we are talking specifically about the ten deadliest mass shootings, because that's what is being discussed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the change in reference from the LA Times article to the more substantial Time magazine article. What about changing the text to "Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or similar have been used in approximately half of the deadliest mass shootings in American history" ? I'm also OK with Slatersteven's suggested text. Springee (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK lets also try another alternative

Proposal 2

Proposal 2 "AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the 10 of the deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support as a compromise solution. Otherwise we're just going to keep fighting over whether it's five or six. "Around half of the ten" covers both arguments. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I'll support this one too. Perfect is the enemy of good here people. There's been a good faith effort by a lot of editors to craft something we can all live with. At this point, I'm concerned with key messages, not specifics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support (still) As compromise (edit)with the changing of source to Time magazine article Springee (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Its also borderline gibberish, "AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"

To elucidate, I mean that my second proposal flows badly "5 of the 10 of the deadliest" is just plain bad English. We can leave out the second "of the".Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Reads better.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Still oppose It's harder to read, longer, and less precise than 6/10. Still not an improvement, but it might be more readable like this:

• Support Seems like a reasonable compromise that should finally put a rest to this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Springee I did indeed put it in the wrong section. PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Either this or proposal 1 is fine with me. 6/10 should not be used, nor "more than half" since that is simply inaccurate, given that Pulse was not committed using an AR-15-style rifle as defined by this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Proposal 3

"In more than half of the 10 deadliest shootings in modern American history, the primary weapons used were AR-15s or similar rifles." Again, it's clearer (and more precise, and shorter) to say "In six of the ten deadliest shootings in modern American history, the primary weapons used were AR-15s or similar rifles." Waleswatcher (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Support 6/10 is an inaccurate claim based on misinformation and should not be in the article. "Around half" is fine. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not at all the proposal I supported, and whoever refactored this mess has completely changed the context of my comment. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• oppose50% is not more then half. Change "In more than half" to "In around half" and that reflects all the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I 'm confused. I thought the whole point of your proposed wording - "AR-15s or similar rifles" - was to include the MCX used in the Pulse shooting. So that's 6/10, isn't it? Both the LA Times and the new Time magazine source (that I think we've all agreed on using?) say 6/10. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made it clear (for a long time) I dislike such specific numbers as they are open to sudden change (irrespective of the inclusion (or not) of Pulse). The main point for me is I do not want to have to reexamine the text every time some nutter with a gun decides to make a name for themselves. Moreover I am unsure about inclusion of the Pulse shootings, this is called a compromise, which given my main concern means I cannot support "over 50%".Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the point in making the wording slightly vaguer is to respect the fact that different sources report some of the shootings differently. This is largely because there is a verifiable variance in public perception as to what constitutes an AR-15 type rifle. Is it enough that it looks like an AR-15? That the controls are functionally similar? That it have interchangeable parts with an AR-15? The truth is that different sources have different answers for that question. By making the language a bit more vague we're able to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice that reflects this variation in opinion into what constitutes one of these weapons. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I thought that was the point of the new wording "AR-15s or similar rifles" was to include MCX without dispute. Otherwise I really don't see the point of any of this - there's no dispute about the other 5. Not to mention that both the LA Times and the new Time magazine source (that I think we've agreed on using?) say 6/10. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 4

As of February 2018, in 5 or 6 of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history, the primary weapons used were AR-15 style rifles, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting; sources disagree on whether the SIG MCX used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is considered an AR-15 style rifle.

• Support We need a solution which honors ALL reliable sources. Editors are reminded that excluding reliable sources is a violation best editorial practices, as well as discretionary sanctions. The sources are sufficiently strong that by policy they may not be excluded, nor may they be segregated to a footnote, and Wikipedia may not say or imply in text or in footnote that the SIG MCX is or is not an AR-15 style rifle. Developing definitive consensus language across multiple reliable sources, when some editors believe some of those sources are flat out wrong and should be excluded, is not going to work, so embrace the suck. This proposal respects our readers' ability to form their own conclusion; by policy we may NOT do it for them, so let's take it easy on ourselves and move on to expanding this section to reflect coverage in reliable sources. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:57 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Sock of HughD. Springee (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As a bit too ORy, yes we can find sources that say 6 out of 10, are there actually any sources that say 5 out of 10? If a source say 6 out of 10 so must we. Also (and again) this will have to be revised after each mass shooting, a less vague sentence will not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I'm a bit confused about what are we approving/opposing here. Is this the specific wording in question AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history? It seems like most are in favor of the general change but we are having trouble getting the exact text right. In general I prefer statements to the effect of "approximately/about/around half of the ten deadliest". I would prefer to avoid the word "primary" since I don't know that we are certain the AR-15 was always the "primary" weapon in all cases. If we just say "were used in" we avoid that claim (though I think in most cases it was true). I was thinking about putting the change in the article but I want to make sure we are in agreement first. Springee (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to make it a bit clearer what we're !voting on in each case. I hope @Waleswatcher: won't mind that I edited their post slightly to do this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that helps some but, for example I look at Red Rock Canyon's "support" and it says 6/10 is wrong and suggests "around" vs "more than half" which is WW's proposal. I'm also not sure if PackMecEng is supporting ""In more than half of the 10" or "in around half". Springee (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to them to clarify their own responses. I just wanted to make the proposals clear now that we have three on the go. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that Red Rock Canyon was supporting Proposal 2; but they should clarify that for themself. I see that PackMecEng has already clarified their !vote. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move the choices to different sub headings. But thank you both for mentioning it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So far it does seem like consensus is coalescing behind proposal #2. I'd suggest we leave this open for a while but I'd also suggest we use it as an interim wording pending feedback from new parties. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll second that. Springee (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate references

this and this are almost exactly the same. They are in the same newspaper, have the same authors, are dated a few months apart, have the same quotes from the same sources, etc. I didn't go over them line by line, but the only apparent difference is in the first few paragraphs. Do we really need to cite two nearly identical articles for the same thing at the end of the same sentence? And as a rhetorical question, do we really need to immediately revert editors that make obvious and basic improvements to this article (like removing a duplicate reference) because we have disagreed with them in the past? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather that adding yet another accusation of bad faith why not as 72bikers why both were included. I don't honestly recall but I do remember that there was a lot of back and forth. You just ignored that, didn't ask first and made a change to contested material. Not smart. If the articles really are redundant and there was no reason to include both I will self revert. In the mean time please slow down and discuss changes first. Springee (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"I don't honestly recall but I do remember that there was a lot of back and forth. You just ignored that, didn't ask first and made a change to contested material."

Ignored what exactly? Link, please.

"If the articles really are redundant and there was no reason to include both I will self revert."

What do you mean, "if"? In the time it took you to type that you could have clicked on the links I provided and checked yourself. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

They are similar but not the same, they both have distinct content. And with substantial content to support, 3 citations is not overkill. And Springee is correct this was addressed long ago you. You tried repeatedly to keep this content out of the article and recently trying to refute it with claims journalist are experts and now trying to remove its references just after trying to remove the statement altogether.

What are the optoics of you trying to rehash it now? -72bikers (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"They are similar but not the same, they both have distinct content." What is the difference that justifies including both for what's being cited there? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The beginning of each article is different, but the main portions which support our article content are identical. The same source publishing the same content twice does not increase its prominence among reliable sources or provide additional support to a claim. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

They also have different bylines.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? The authors are the same, the only difference is the date (which are a few months apart). Obviously, those two wrote an article and then a few months later updated/modified it slightly and it was posted/published again. There's no reason to cite both versions, it's analogous to citing two printings of a book. Waleswatcher (talk)

Sorry, They reversed names and I read it as different people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears the quoted material has been used, likely as wire feed, in a number of articles. I'm now inclined to say remove it as redundant. I'm sure we can find additional instances of the two experts being quoted if weight for their comments is a concern. I will self revert. Springee (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

They are not exactly the same in the body of the content, headings and the compiled data. The content in the article is substantial hence the 3 citations. With the current discussion at the noticeboard on this content looking like more weight is going to be placed on experts, there is going to be unique quotes from both. 72bikers (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The quotes are identical in those two articles, aren't they? So what's your point? Anyway it seems there is a consensus for removal of the duplicate. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The reference is longstanding content and should not be removed without consensus.72bikers (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to challenge and remove content. –dlthewave ☎ 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this is solely in the removed source. Expert commentary as the NPOV discussion seem to be in the favor of including more expert view over journalist speculation.

For example, Hazen says the AK-47 — and its semiautomatic variants — is a "far more wicked gun than an AR-15." The AK-47 variants can hold just as many rounds as the AR-15, are more reliable and use larger 7.62 mm rounds as opposed to the standard AR-15's .223 rounds

Some killers might be drawn to the AR-15 because they are the "weapon of choice" for the military and police. But ironically, the police "choose it because it is under-powered, Hazen said, "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." The Army is considering moving to a higher-caliber rifle partly because that would make the weapon more deadly.

Speaking through tears, Stephen Willeford, the man some are calling a hero for engaging in a shootout with the Texas church gunman on Sunday, says he was afraid for his life but that he believes God gave him the skills needed to face the shooter. (Nov. 6) AP video

I think this last part of Stephen stepping up and surely mortally wounding the shooter with his own AR-15 should be mentioned in the AR-15 article. -72bikers (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

James Fox supporting Blair and Hazen

@Waleswatcher: removed this sentence from the article, also Dr. James Fox a professor of criminology shares the copycat effect view. [[47]]. I believe it was initially meant to be supported by this reference [[48]] (removed here [[49]]). I think the removal based on the reference not specifically containing "AR-15" would be incorrect. Depending on context the generalized "assault weapon" term is likely to encompass AR-15 rifles. However, I can't tell what part of the video is meant to support the sentence Waleswatcher removed. @72bikers:, could you point out what part of the video supports the article claim? For the time being I support WW's removal as, even with the reference included, I can't see that it passes verification. Springee (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It would appear we are no longer allowed to add a supporting expert (James Fox) to support the other two recognized experts, "Not in either cited reference, and makes the BALANCE/DUE issue even more severe". Its not really clear how experts on a relating content outweigh in a article.

Springee I placed the relevant content section parameters in the edit summary, at 15 minutes and 50 seconds until 22 minutes and 50 seconds "from 15:50 to 22:50 he speaks to how the media tries to get him to sensationalized some claim by filtering the facts to most this or most that, and how they provoke copycat effect."

He speaks to how the media is always trying to get him to support largest this or most used that. He states that by the media specifically trying to make some sensationalized claim its the biggest this or badest that or most used this, promotes a copycat effect. He does not state any specific weapon used in the copycatting just that the medias specific sensational claims provoke specific copying. So he is simply saying if the media is making sensational claims about how deadly the AR is that's what they copycat.

This source could also be used in contrast of this "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" being the facts clearly say this media claim is incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. We could also use it directly because of the medias AR weapon of choice claim, gives reason to use foxes views to support the AR copying by Blair and Hazen. Fox is clearly supporting Blair and hazen, who also claim copying because of what they see in the media.

• Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”
• "…and copying them, or it can be using the same type of weapon other shooters have used if you’re planning a mass shooting.” -72bikers (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

There are definitely WP:PEACOCK concerns over also Dr. James Fox a professor of criminology.. We're effectively saying "and scientist James Fox, a scientist" - which is a no-no. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

October 26 edits

Though, per WP:AGF I would prefer not to treat an ip address making an edit as a sock puppet prior to an investigation, I will suggest that the extensive edit made this morning was probably not WP:DUE - suggest bringing this discussion to talk prior to re-insertion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering about the assertion, is there any reason to think this was a sock, and if so of whom?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the assertion is regarding HughD. I only know that somebody bombards both the article and talk page with thousands of bytes of edits every now and then, and that it always gets reverted. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The pattern is a HughD IP sock. The blocked editor has a long history of such behavior using both IP and sock accounts [50]]. The IP address is located in the Chicago area just like the ones that NeilN (talk · contribs) has reverted here [[51]], and here [[52]] and in many other instances like here [[53]]. This is the same IP editor who initiated the RfC that we recently discussed here [[54]]. Rewarding the sock's efforts by allowing the material to stand just encourages more bad behavior. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll reach out to a checkuser informally. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I just prefer not to use WP:DENY on suspicion absent any sort of investigation. The admin I contacted is very good at dealing with sock puppetry and if this IP is found to be a sock puppet I'll gladly self-revert my restoration of their comments. Just avoiding WP:BITE for WP:AGF reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

My computer autofilled the "DENY" entry. At some point NielN suggested EVADE was the correct tag. Springee (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, admins have confirmed they're a sock. I see that the comments have already been removed again, I'm fine with that. WRT their article space edit - yeah, that was a massive inclusion and WP:DUE would definitely apply so I'm not losing any sleep. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

not a list of mass shootings

This is not a list of mass shootings using AR-15's, the list is only of the most deadly (and 10 does not even come close).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur, but I reverted addition of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting because it was unsourced. I might have requested a source citation if the added text stood alone; but splicing it into existing text gave the erroneous impression it was sourced by the following citation. I hope better information becomes available; because early accounts seem inconclusive about the model of rifle carried by the shooter, and which of the four available firearms were used to cause casualties. Thewellman (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, please see this discussion as well as the several above it. Springee (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• To soon for the list of most notable. It should be removed pending discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it should be kept pending discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That is not how consensus required works... PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Agreed. This was the deadliest attack against Jews in the history of the USA. It is everywhere, and just about every source mentions the rifle. Why anyone thinks it should not be mentioned in a section on mass shootings with these rifles is hard to fathom.Waleswatcher (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Remove pending discussion: The material has already been removed more than once which now means it requires consensus for inclusion. This article is not meant to be a list of every shooting or even mass shooting that was committed in part or in total with an AR-15 type rifle. That is what the mass shooting list is for. In this article we can cover the controversy around the AR-15 rifle due to it's use in mass shootings. To establish the foundation for this discussion the article lists 5 shootings due to the fact that they are members of the 10 most deadly mass shooting in the US. With that foundation of WHY the article should discuss mass shootings there is no reason to list new ones. If there is a wish to create a list of every mass shooting that used an AR-15 why not create that as a list topic then link it to the mass shooting section here? Springee (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• That might actually be the best idea. It should be very easy to source as well; we might get a featured list out of it. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Black Kite The article is under consensus required. Why would you reinsert it? PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Because it seemed ridiculous to have a list of the most notable shootings without one of the most notable. Either have a proper list, or remove the whole thing. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's not a list of the most notable. It's a list of the deadliest. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Is the synagogue shooting one of 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history. No? Then it can't be included in the list per WP:OR. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not just a list of the deadliest; The Port Arthur Massacre is mentioned. –dlthewave ☎ 12:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of Port Arthur significantly predates the references to the ten deadliest in US history - and whereas the 10 deadliest sentence is due for the preponderance of the AR-15 style rifle in especially deadly shootings, the inclusion of Port Arthur is due to the significant changes to Australian firearms law following that shooting. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)+

Also it is not part of that list, it is a separate paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The sentence about the ten deadliest shootings and the paragraph about Port Arthur are not to be taken as part of a comprehensive list. Both were included for separate notability reasons and have distinct criteria. While I'm personally horrified by this obvious hate crime, and do believe it to be a notable event, the consensus on this page has been hard-won and is often fragile. As such we really try to avoid WP:RECENTISM as much as possible. If the discussion of this crime, in coming weeks, includes sustained discussion of the AR-15 style rifle the shooter used, we can look at if it's appropriate for inclusion on this page at that time. In the meantime it is definitely due inclusion at Mass shootings in the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Black Kite that section is specifically about the ten deadliest. As far as I know, this one is tied for 20th deadliest mass shooting in modern US history (post 1945) which... well... it's pretty terrifying when you consider that in the 20th and 21st century the only mass shooting in Canada that was as deadly as it was the École Polytechnique massacre. But I would suggest, with regard to notability that we should wait until WP:RECENTISM is less of an issue to adjudicate to what extent the specific firearm becomes relevant to this tragedy compared to the obvious blatant bigotry of the perpetrator in order to establish clearly that this incident is WP:DUE here in particular. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agree Listing the 20 most deadliest shootings with AR-15 style rifles would be intricate detail here. In fact it's also likely that it wouldn't be appropriate for a standalone article either since the the scope of "massacres done with the most common rifle in the US" is trivial. --Pudeo (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Should be included It's true the Pittsburgh shooting shouldn't be in that list, since it's not one of the ten deadliest shootings (which is shocking in its own horrible way). But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. As a very notable attack it should be, just as Port Arthur is. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Port Arthur changed then law of nation, so far this has not even upset Donnies campaigning. When this has a real tangible effect on the firearms issue then it might be worth including, but as long as it is just more "thoughts and prayers" it is not more significant then any other mass shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Synagogue shooting

"The federal criminal complaint filed against Robert Bowers details the 29 federal criminal counts he’s charged with and the weapons he used during the shooting at Tree of Life Synagogue. (...) According to the complaint, Bowers had four weapons on him including three Glock .357 handguns as well as a Colt AR-15 model SP1" Source, which is an AR-15 style rifle. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone found a source indicating which firearm caused the wounds (fatal or non-fatal)? In the absence of such information, it seems inappropriate conjecture to credit (or blame) the AR-15 style rifle rather than the Glock pistols, which (in addition to their pre-event publicity) would seem to have a three to one probability advantage in this event. Thewellman (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Bowers used a Colt AR-15 rifle and three Glock .357 handguns during the attack, police said." [55]. You raise a valid point, we may need to wait until specific details are released. –dlthewave ☎ 12:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ERROR IN Assaulted weapons and crime/Majors against illegal guns.

Hello, I just did two minor edits to the article. The second one included a passage about assault rifles being used in 25% of mass shootings.

However, when you click the link referenced to (https://psmag.com/news/simple-facts-mass-shootings-arent-simple-72055) then it's obvious that there must have been a mix up. There are two figures in the article immediately next to each other. "25%" and "14 out of 93". This wikipedia article quotes the wrong number (25%) instead of the actual one (14 out of 93) from the analysis done by Mayors Aginst Illegal Guns.

I went ahead and corrected it.

Interesting, looks like a typo on the source. It should be 15%, the source in psmag article refers to this which is where they got the 14 out of 93. That source correctly calls it 15%. PackMecEng (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We had a ding dong about this at the time. with me (more or less) saying we should not say 25%.Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha yeah I remember that, figures. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a bit confused here

Why would some socks/IP editors work so hard to remove a comment that said the press often refers to AR-15 style rifles as "AR-15s"? [[56]] I get that this article draws a lot of people who either want to make it all about the crimes or nothing about the crimes. But I don't get why this bit of text would turn into some sort of edit war. Springee (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Colt AR-15 fanatics, likely. Or just strawman trolling. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Archived

My usual note that I've archived any threads that haven't received a further response in ~ a month. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Prominent

The use of this word has been discussed and arrived at by consensus and should be reinstated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It was reinstated. Nobody has removed it since you reinstated it. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

True, but it was added by a new users (as a minor edit) so it might be worth telling them that is here for a reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SS, "prominent" was added as part of a consensus process, and not an easy one at that. I'm not sure about the other material that was added at the same time. SS self reverted their removal but removal might be the right thing. I'm not sure if the material is supported by any of our current references though I'm sure that could be corrected. My bigger concern is the material seems to be talking about the origin of the Armalite AR-15 vs the generic copies of the Colt civilian model. The lineage as I understand it would be Armalite AR-10 -> Armalite AR-15 -> Colt (M-16 and civilian AR-15) -> generic AR-15s. So while the subject of this article, the generic AR-15s trace back to the AR-10, that lineage is perhaps to distant to be mentioned here. I think it could be OK here with a bit of text massaging or it could be removed with no harm to the article. Springee (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I was also wondering about that too, this is about a type of rifle, not a specific make. But even if we include it, it has nothing to do with the terminology (rather it is about the historical background).Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the edits were good faith and I can see why they were added but I actually agree with your removal upon further consideration. This article didn't say Stoner created the rifle so the additional clarifications aren't needed. I will revert Slatersteven's self revert. Springee (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Article has a citation that does not relate to the claim/statement.

In the Terminology section, there is a claim made about the origin of the name "Modern Sporting Rifle" that has numerous citations. It looks like the first is the only one that has a chance of supporting the claim. The second (I'm using a mobile device; sorry if formatting is off) is a link to a Slate article that discusses an incident in which an AR-15 was used. It appears to be somewhat of an option piece, and it is not a source for the origin of the name. This is the URL: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/06/the_sig_sauer_mcx_used_in_orlando_is_a_modern_sporting_rifle_not_an_assault.html.

I think it should be removed. If somebody loves the article, it would be appropriate for a section (or article) about the AR-15's controversy, political issues, or similar.

How am I doing for a first "Talk" page post? Grossdm (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute over inclusion/exclusion of "Use in crime and mass shootings" section

@Slatersteven: @Rmmiller44: please discuss the dispute over this here on the talk page rather than edit warring in the article itself. I have protected the article for 24 hours. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I asked them to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Merging duplicate sources

@Slatersteven: In this edit, AutoWikiBrowser noticed that the reference named "NYT 13 June 2016" was defined twice within the article. It removed the redundant definition. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch

Has it been conformed yet if it was an AR-15 style rifle?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The official investigation has not named any of the guns, see the thread here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand's Police Minister said one of the firearms used by the gunman was an AR-15 style rifle (read article here). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this will be verified as an AR-15 type rifle (among other guns) and support inclusion based on that assumption. I think it would be best to include the material in context of the impact to the country's laws etc rather than just a statement like "an AR-15 was used in the ... shooting..." This would be similar to how the L1A1 and Colt AR-15 pages handle the Port Arthur shooting. Springee (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Or this one does.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As this is actually changing the law of a nation why is it not relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The way it was recently added just makes it a crime list. However, I'm ok with something along the lines of "the use of an AR-15 style rifle in the [date] Christchurch shooting resulted in NZ passing the [name] law prohibiting [short description]. Springee (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a more recent article that includes the results of the proposed law? I don't care for the "proposed" language as if the bill didn't pass what was in impact? I'm assuming it did pass so we should probably find a reference that says as much. We should also be more clear about what the bill covers. Springee (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There may be potential ambiguity about banning these firearms. Is the ban inclusive, or are there some exclusions. Can military personnel use these firearms? How about policemen? Private security personnel? Do any of these exclusions have racial, ethnic, or political implications? Thewellman (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the text should be cleaned up. It seems silly to say the law was proposed then say it was passed in the next sentence. Just say the shooting resulted in the passage of the law which [more detailed description than "bans guns used in attack"]. Per the article page there were two rifles and two shotguns. Did the shotguns get banned as well? I'm not trying to be critical of Slatersteven's good faith edits. My feeling is that we could clean things up a bit. Perhaps later today I will propose an edit. Here is the article on the resulting law [[57]] Springee (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Reopening discussion of appropriateness of the crimes section

Upon seeking trivial information today about the weight of an AR 15, I noticed a section entitled "Use in crimes and mass shootings." This entire section is not NPOV.

This section is completely inappropriate for this entry. It is motivated by political opposition to semi-automatic rifles in general and this gun in particular. The previous talk on this entry exhibits inflammatory emotional appeal to include this section to describe the weapon as horrific. The section refers to this gun as the "Weapon of choice" for mass shootings, a statement that is false, unsupported, and is tainted with normative judgment and bias. A citation does not make this normative opinion a meaningful fact.

The AR 15 just happens to be one of the most prevalent weapon platforms on the planet, and especially in the US. By virtue of its sheer numbers alone, it will be disproportionately involved in crime. This does not make it a "weapon of choice" for crime any more than it is the "weapon of choice" for people defending their homes and businesses, hunting, or national defense. The citation for this comment contains only anecdotal evidence. The mass shootings section is ANECDOTAL, not evidence.

In one of the anecdotes of a mass shooting, the AR 15 was only one of and a minority of the guns used.

Notably, the people who have been fighting for inclusion of this section have demonstrated on this talk page that they would like to have included many more than the 10 worst shootings involving the AR 15. That is, they would prefer to make this article with information ABOUT the AR 15 into a diatribe of criticisms of its existence in public hands.

Mr. Slater, in particular, has reverted my edits twice. My edits contained a full explanation of why I deleted the section with reference to Wikipedia standards. His reversion mentioned that a consensus had been reached for inclusion, yet no such consensus exists in the talk. The only discussion is between people who want to keep the section in how many mass shootings they can discuss, 10, 20, more, all.

Notably, there is no section on the use in crimes in the entry for the Kalashnikov rifle which has been used in the most horrific mass killings in history. While not dispositive, it demonstrates that inclusion of this section for the AR 15 is motivated to change the policies in democratic western countries, not to inform the reader.

It is entirely appropriate to mention in an article about a mass shooting that a particular weapon was used. That information is a critical part of the entry. But that does not imply that a mass shooting with an AR 15 is a critical piece of information about the AR 15. It is anecdotal and parenthetical. As one person said in the edit history, hundreds of millions of these rifles are owned without incident. Another commenter noted that investigative authorities in Christchurch did not confirm the make and model of the firearms used.

As an analogue, a person used a Dodge Charger to run over protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. It is entirely appropriate (although trivial) to mention in the Charlottesville killing entry that a man drove his Dodge Charger into a crowd of protesters. It is completely inappropriate to put a section onto the Dodge Charger (or Dodge) page talking about "Crimes using Dodge Chargers." It attributes to the car the evil actions of the perpetrator. Indeed, the average reader would find the particular car used in that attack as trivial.

The use of the word "style" itself is intentionally vague and ambiguous as a means of attributing to the AR 15 as many misuses as possible. Clearly every rifle commonly used in defense in NATO countries, all which use the same caliber and magazine, will have similar qualities to the AR. Indeed, aesthetic qualities are evolutionary in nature, and those qualities that are desirable will propagate. Indeed, laws in the US and elsewhere that have banned AR-style rifles commonly rely on cosmetic appearance, not function, to define the banned weapons.

I have never been involved in any "edit war" in the 12 years I have been involved with Wikipedia. When I make my edits, I explain my rationale according to the Wikipedia rules. Mr. Slater who reverted my changes merely referred to a "consensus" in the talk that does not exist. He confuses the preponderance of discussion with "consensus." As described in the wikipedia rules, a "consensus" is an agreement on facts for which there is no reasonable dispute. The edit and talk history shows that there is NO CONSENSUS on the inclusion of this section. And to the extent there ever was, I now dispute that with this discussion.

Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a soap box. No encyclopedia would have a section on Use in Mass Shootings for any gun. Mr. Slater is clearly using this page as a soapbox for his anti-gun sentiments.

Wikipedia requires a Neutral Point of View, and Mr. Slater clearly wants an article that denigrates this rifle for the purpose of having them politically banned.

Wikipedia requires DEBATE, not merely reverting changes and saying, "This has been discussed" especially when it has not been discussed. There is no consensus here. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44

First off please read wp:agf.

As to the wall of text. No we do not say it is " a weapon of choice" we say it has widely been called that (and it is supported by multiple sources).

We also do not say it is disproportionaly used in crime (in fact we say the exact opposite), what we say is that it has been used in half of the deadliest mass shootings. Nor do I recall anyone saying it should be a longer list, in fact far from it (in fact if you care to check you will find I argued against the list, saying it should be more vaguely worded as it will be open to change).

As to no consensus, consensus is not "you agree with me" it is "the most agree". Yes this was a agreed by consensus, look, at how much this has been discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

...no such consensus exists in the talk.

Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 6 (105 instances of "mass shoot")

Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 5 (217 instances of "mass shoot")

Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 4 (101 instances of "mass shoot")

Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 3 (154 instances of "mass shoot")

Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 2 (84 instances of "mass shoot")

Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 1 (42 instances of "mass shoot")

That's just the talk page archives, not including conversations in the WP:NPOVN archives and elsewhere. Leviv ich 15:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

With all of them coming down in favour of inclusion, that is what we mean by consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed by the community at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_142 with consensus for inclusion. This doesn't prevent us from revisiting the question, but community consensus should not be overturned without a larger discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with discussion of it again (consensus can change), I do take issue with the characterization of the issues as presented by the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I came to read this article because the AR15 is being talked about in the news around the recent mass shootings in the United States. I wanted to learn more about this gun that is being discussed. This article has probably seen a spike in page views in the last week because of this. It would be strange to not acknowledge that the AR15 is at the center of the discussion of mass shootings. --The steno pool (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

No, "consensus" does not mean "the most agree" and no such most exists in the talk. The mere fact that a handful of zealots for inclusion temporarily outnumber those who don't does not mean "consensus." A consensus is general agreement, that is, there are no unreasonable disputes about the factual basis for any included entry, section, or fact. Such a disagreement exists here. But factual truth is not the whole measure of what is appropriate in an entry.

No consensus can override the Wikipedia Pillars. This section is inherently non-NPOV designed to oppose this weapon system in government policy. As I've stated more than once, there is no rationale for its inclusion in this ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, and neither you nor anyone else has provided a reason. You are confusing discussion among people of like mind with reaching a consensus. Several people other than me have noted the non-NPOV nature of this section.

I always assume good faith, but when bad faith is obvious, I need not extend it. The section is obviously non-NPOV and no one has attempted to defend it as being NPOV. I have raised this point several times, others have raised this, and you have never argued against that.

I did not say you said it was a "weapon of choice." That is a straw man. And that is also quibbling. Citing someone who says this phrase is giving validity to it. The reference, however, is a bald assertion of someone's OPINION. That opinion is unsupported by any facts and is, in fact, factually false. We could easily spend 30 pages of adding content that talks about what people have said about an AR 15. An encyclopedia entry is about facts, not opinions, not speeches.

As an example, if I edited the Wikipedia entry on "Modern liberalism in the United States" with a section on "Notable Liberals Who Committed Crimes", this would obviously have a political agenda and hence non-NPOV even though every fact is true and well supported with references. You have not addressed WHY this section is not non-NPOV.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It is not appropriate to include in the AR 15 entry every incident, good or bad, involving the use of an AR 15. Would you favor a section of the top 10 uses of AR 15s in self defense? Other entries on guns don't include this section.

What you favor is not "consensus." It is mob rule. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and talk is not a "vote."

Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44

We do not include every incident (as far as I know), and I have opposed such making this a list of all crimes involving the AR-15 style rifle. As to why it is not NPOV, well we give both sides of the debate, this we represent all views. Many (many many) RS have made a point about (specifically) the AR-15 and its use in mass shootings (not crime, but deadly mass shootings). If RS said this about cars, politicians or small elephants then it would be fitting to mention this in other articles. The fact is that generally such issues do not arise, even with many other guns. The AR-15 has received a unique level of attention, and out article must reflect that (maybe because it has been used in so many attacks where multiple 10's of people have died, which is all we say).Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The alternative is to say "let's not mention that an AR-15 style rifle has ever been used in a mass shooting" which is also an unsatisfactory position per WP:NOTCENSORED, which says "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Like it or not, the AR-15 style rifle has acquired a bit of a reputation due to the ease with which it can fall into the wrong hands (Stoneman Douglas, Sandy Hook etc). It would be wrong to remove all mention of this as it is a key part of the gun's background. I don't believe that some mass shooters have specifically chosen an AR-15 style rifle, but its status as the most common rifle of this type has inevitably led to controversy over whether civilians should own weapons of this type. The article has to look at this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue, its use has been a major public controversy (and has actually changed laws in some countries). We cannot ignore this issue, any more then the media do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It is believed that one of the guns used in the Christchurch mosque shootings was an AR-15 style rifle, although there is no direct confirmation of this from the investigators. This is important as it is likely to lead to a change to the gun laws in New Zealand. Again, the article would have to mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would rather leave that out until its use has been confirmed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia should list the guns allegedly used in Christchurch on the basis of "an expert looked at the video and said that it was probably gun x". This may turn out to be true or it may not. The investigators have been tight lipped on the exact make and models used, but nature abhors a vacuum and there are numerous sources claiming to give the make and model of the guns based on analysis of the video. I would be quite happy to remove Christchurch from this article until firm evidence turns up from the investigators themselves. But I can't because the article is fully protected at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's premature to list Christchurch without official confirmation. I would remove it myself if the article wasn't protected.

This article's mass shooting coverage is already extremely limited and is the result of extensive discussion among a diverse group of editors. If folks feel that a specific statement is undue or not supported by sources, they should discuss those specific concerns instead of deleting the entire section.. –dlthewave ☎ 17:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not and no one has suggested censoring information about the use of AR 15s in any mass shooting. As I have said multiple times, it is appropriate (albeit trivial) to raise that point in the entry on a particular mass shooting. For example, in the entry on the U. Texas Tower Shooting, it appropriately lists all of the guns the shooter used. However, if you go to the entry for each of the guns, there is not a reference to and not a link back to the Tower Shooting. Talking about the guns the shooter used is factual. Linking the gun to the shooting is propaganda which is expressly forbidden in Wikipedia.

The inclusion of ANY incidents in this entry is non-NPOV. The number of incidents doesn't matter. This is akin to including a section in the entry for "rope" a list of notable suicides by hanging. It serves no purpose whatsoever except to advance one political viewpoint.

The AR has NOT been used in many attacks because attacks with rifles of all kinds are extremely rare. As I have said multiple times, the AR figures disproportionately in these attacks because they are popular, not because they possess qualities that other guns (like the Kalashnikov) don't have. We could have an entry on "Black Rifles" and have a long list of incidents involving black rifles. Yet it isn't the color black that has made them deadly. It is not the color that makes them controversial. And neither does the style of this particular type of weapon figure into any mass shootings. All semi-automatic guns have comparable ability to cause those incidents.

All of the discussions to which you linked above contain vehement objections to including this content. Again, you are confused in thinking that "consensus" means "majority." It does not. Consensus means "general agreement." We all generally agree that the entry on the AR 15 should describe its history, physical characteristics, and adoption by police and military. We do NOT agree generally in describing every or any particular criminal misuse of this product.

A notable exception to what I just said is a newsworthy malfunction in an AR. For example, the Sig Sauer P320 suffered from a defect of firing when dropped causing the company to issue an "upgrade" opportunity. That is relevant information. Discussing the top 10 crimes where someone used a Sig Sauer P320 is not informative; it is propaganda against that particular gun.

It is appropriate to include in the Christchurch Shooting entry that it resulted in a ban of particular types of weapons used in the shooting. That is an informative and relevant section. But the reverse is not relevant or informative. There is no need whatsoever to list every or any misuses of an AR style gun.

Wikipedia standards do in fact support discussion of all meaningful (not fringe) sides of a debate. That is not what is happening here. The section is injecting "debate" into what should be a set of descriptive facts. There are plenty of entries that discuss gun control, and I do not oppose any of them. The issue is that it is not appropriate to raise the issue of gun control or misuse of guns in every (or select) entries on guns.

You are essentially saying that the entry for the Airbus A320 should include a section talking about a German pilot intentionally crashing such a plane. Talking about crashes caused by malfunctions with the plane is one thing. Talking about incidents merely INVOLVING the plane is irrelevant, parenthetical, and derogatory.

The section also gives undue weight to this topic. As I have said and others have said, there is no section on the tens of millions of daily uses of AR 15s that are not part of a mass shooting. There is no section talking about civilian uses of ARs in self-defense; and there should be none. Indeed, the news does not report when planes land, but mentioning incidents in an encyclopedia entry still gives undue weight to arguments against the use of AR 15 style guns. If you think this section is appropriate, then I and others will start populating this entry with incidents where people defended themselves using ARs. Fair is fair.

I accept that Wikipedia is different from many encyclopedias, but entries cannot be allowed to run amok with politically motivated material. No other encyclopedia would have a section like this. None.

If Wikipedia allows this, then I may just start adding sections like this. The rules are designed to STOP disputes, not create them. And this section is creating dispute. By definition, that is not a consensus.

Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44

This wall of text is your opinion and does not align with what the sources say. On Wikipedia, we follow the sources, not our opinions.

Most of the information in the Criminal use section is not about individual mass shootings and does not actually belong in the articles about those shootings. Sources including New York Times, USA Today and ABC News are specifically about AR-15 style rifles. They discuss the specific features that make the weapon attractive to mass shooters, compare to other semiautomatics. For balance, we also include the opinion that it is chosen because of the "copycat effect". This is factual information about the role that the weapon plays in sopciety, and it is relevant to the article. We don't exclude content just because it may cast the subject in a bad light, and criminal use is no more propaganda than the hunting section.

Whether you like it or not, reliable sources do not treat all items associated with crime the same way. The role of rope in crime is not widely discussed, so it is not mentioned in our rope article aside from see also links to "hanging" and "flagellation". On the other hand, Boeing 727 and AR-15 style rifle both discuss features that have made them attractive to criminals, since these have received significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The idea that mass shootings should not be discussed in this article is absurd, not to mention against wiki policy. By far the most noteworthy fact about this class of rifles is its use in mass shootings. There is an enormous body of media discussing that, and the evidence shows that many (quite likely most) users coming to this page are looking for that information. Mass shootings should be discussed at much greater length and feature more prominently in this article, and it is only the concerted and determined efforts of a minority of editors that has prevented that.Waleswatcher (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Americans can identify three rifles by model, and this is what they "know" about them: M-16s are used by "the good guys", AK-47s are used by "the bad guys", and AR-15s are used in mass shootings. Leviv ich 17:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Waleswatcher's opinion that the current article doesn't feature the mass shooting material prominently enough is just that, their opinion. Same with the claim that a "minority of editors". But it is clear that there is weight to include mass shooting information along with links to the primary articles on the related topics. A significant concern on both sides is balancing the topic. Some editors think this should only be about the rifle as a mechanical device while it's use in mass shootings should be left to articles about crimes. Others feel the only significant thing about these rifles is their use in crime and the rest is trivial. Currently we probably have the right balance since neither side is happy :D Springee (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Who said the other side is not happy?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments that I have. On consensus: A consensus is general agreement, that is, there are no unreasonable disputes about the factual basis for any included entry, section, or fact. Such a disagreement exists here - False. Consensus is the process by which disputes are mediated by weighing the arguments against policies and guidelines. No consensus can override the Wikipedia Pillars - Policies and guidelines are made through consensus. The pillars themselves are a consensus. For god's sake 5P4 instructs us to [s]eek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The rules are designed to STOP disputes, not create them - No, they are there to mediate disputes. Flat-earthers don't like that our article Earth talks about a globe, but we do not cease to state the facts just because some people don't like them.
On NPOV: ... this would obviously have a political agenda and hence non-NPOV even though every fact is true and well supported with references - If it was well documented and supported by RS, it would be non-NPOV to exclude it.
On content: Wikipedia standards do in fact support discussion of all meaningful (not fringe) sides of a debate - Fringe? I could pull up a 100 sources discussing the use of this particular style of rifle is mass shootings. Page 1 of a google search of "AR-15 in shootings" brings up: What are AR-15 rifles and why are they used so often in US mass shootings (EuroNews); Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings (USA Today); What makes the AR-15 style rifle the weapon of choice for mass shootings (CBS News); Banning the AR-15 Won't Solve the Mass Shooting Crisis (Vice); Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters (ABC News); It's Going to Take More Than Background Checks and AR-15 Bans to stop mass shootings (Stanford Law). You are essentially saying that the entry for the Airbus A320 should include a section talking about a German pilot intentionally crashing such a plane - If the A320 was the "weapon of choice" for plane attacks, then that article would probably have a section discussing it. We have an entire article on the grounding of the 737 MAX, and it's had all of two crashes.
Other stuff: ... and the evidence shows that many (quite likely most) users coming to this page are looking for that information - What the heck is the basis of this assertion? ... and it is only the concerted and determined efforts of a minority of editors that has prevented that - Nonsense. Disputes over the article have been raised at various boards such as WP:NPOVN. The consensus developed there involved dozens of editors and a massive close with multiple findings. That's not a minority effort. Moreover, even at this article, the majority argument has usually been implemented, except where discussion petered out with no clear consensus. That the section exists at all was a result of a consensus that was built here.
Lastly, [c]urrently we probably have the right balance since neither side is happy - rings rather true. If either side were happy that would be a good indicator that the article was either pushing or hiding a POV. There will likely not ever be unanimous agreement here, any more than there is at I/P or Balkan topics. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

... and the evidence shows that many (quite likely most) users coming to this page are looking for that information - What the heck is the basis of this assertion? The most direct evidence is the huge spikes in page views these articles get immediately following a mass shooting (I've posted graphs at least once here). That establishes "many". "Most" is obviously more difficult, but I suspect it's true, both because of those spikes (which are many times the typical number of views), the fact that the great majority of comments here on the talk page are about this, the (related) fact that many/most of the edits to the page are about this, and the continuous and intense media coverage. On concerted and determined efforts of a minority of editors, see [58] Waleswatcher (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You have shown a correlation between page hits and some mass shootings. What you haven't shown is what the readers were seeking. Were they specifically coming because they wanted to learn about crimes using an AR-15 or were they just interested in knowing about the rifle itself? Citing the OpEd doesn't really help your case since it is just one editor's opinion and the second part of the OpEd points out the issues with that opinion (rather nicely if I do say so myself ;) ). Springee (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

None of this matters, as it is impossible to say why anyone reads any article, curiosity, desire to learn, they have nothing better to do.Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes they do tell us what they are seeking, In this case, a wave of readers who also happen to be editors came to the talk page asking why there was no mention of mass shootings in any of the AR-15-related articles. Additionally, the 2018 RfC shows that there is strong community support for inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirect from "AR-15"

It seems strange to me that the redirect from "AR-15" goes to this article, and not the actual article on the AR-15. Considering that the actual AR-15 article exists and contains all the technical information, why would the redirect go to this article instead?

If anything, an article on the "AR-15 style rifle" sounds like a subtopic of the AR-15 itself, and sounds more like "as covered in popular media" for the AR-15 article. But I do understand that this this topic merits its own article, but at the same time, again, why does it seem like you would be made to visit this page first, then the AR-15 page, instead of the AR-15 page, linking back to this to comprehensively cover the "public understanding" of the AR-15? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.243.230 (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The original Armalite AR-15 has been out of production for many years and is, for all intents and purposes, a relic. Whenever people refer to the modern AR-15 or use the term in conversation or writing, what they mean is an "AR-15 style rifle." Zortwort (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems valid.Slatersteven (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about this, about a year and a half ago. You can see it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24#AR-15. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a non-controversial claim based on claim the source isn't reliable

This edit [[59]] was based on the claim that the non-controversial fact was supported by a non-reliable source. Per RSN there is no consensus that TTAG isn't reliable for technical facts about firearms. Furthermore the author of the cited article, Nick Leghorn, appears to have sufficient expertise in the field to make the non-controversial claim in question. A recent RSN discussion [[60]] reached a consensus that TTAG was not reliable for commentary/interpretation of facts/gun policies but did not reach a consensus that TTAG was unreliable for technical information about firearms themselves. Furthermore, the author of the article is a subject matter expert and is reliable for the statement that the select fire M-16 receiver has an extra pivot hole vs the semi-auto only AR-15 receiver. This is a difference that can be confirmed by other sources but they are typically blogs/forums etc. [[61]][[62]][[63]]. Perhaps the last one could be used as it's a enthusiast magazine but I'm not familiar with it. Either way, consensus was not remove on site and this was exactly the sort of technical detail of a firearm that a number of editors felt could be reliably sourced to subject matter experts, including regular contributors to TTAG. Springee (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the claim is well-known truth and it doesn't make sense to reverse your edit due to the suspicion that the current source, TTAG, may be biased in opinion to one side of the gun-control debate, as the gun-control debate is completely irrelevant to the fact provided. Anybody with even incidental knowledge of the AR-15 platform, who considers themselves knowledgeable about firearms, knows about this detail. Not really sure what Dlthewave is looking to gain by reverting your edit, but if he isn't of sufficient expertise to realize the veracity of this fact then perhaps he shouldn't be editing firearm-related articles. Also, Recoil magazine is indeed a reliable source for firearms-related technical details, but is similar to TTAG in that it expresses pro-gun political sentiments. I think that you will be hard-pressed to find a source which doesn't, given how politically-relevant firearms are these days, but that doesn't make their technical claims any less true. Zortwort (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about sources which might be used to support this claim, http://ugcsurvival.com/WeaponsManuals/ar15conversion%20manual.pdf this book makes note of it, however given that there is no clear author (it is published by Desert Publications), I'm not sure if it's an acceptable source. Perhaps a technical booklet such as http://ugcsurvival.com/WeaponsManuals/ar15-m16%20user%20manual.pdf, the US army user manual (this fact is indicated in the introduction), could be used, with the logic that if select fire lowers require the auto-sear pin, and therefor pinhole, to operate, then they may be identified by the inclusion or exclusion of this pinhole. Zortwort (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If its a well known fact use a better source, if no better source mentions it is it a well known fact, or just someone opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Per RS we balance the reliability of the source against the claim. In this case we have a subject matter expert saying this is so. That passes RS requirements. If others want to find other sources fine. At this point the material has been in the article for a while. Onus is on those who say the source isn’t reliable for this fact to prove it or provide their own preferred source. Springee (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond what Springee has said, you can look at the manuals that I linked yourself and see that it's so. There are a limited number of ways to make an AR-15 burst-fire or fully-automatic, and for the lower to be classified as a select-fire lower, which is the claim, it must have a pin for the auto-sear (and located where it is) as there is no other way within the confines of the platform to give the firearm auto or burst capabilities while maintaining the semi-automatic fire mode. While it might get close to qualifying as original research at that point, we have several secondary sources which are reliable for technical claims, TTAG and Recoil, citing experts who agree that this is the case, and you're still pondering that it might be an opinion? It's obvious that this is a fact, if you want better citation then leave it in the article and append "citation needed", and if anyone of us can ever find a firearms encyclopedia or something which makes note of the claim we can cite it then. It seems like the politics of firearms has, in the eyes of some wiki editors, invalidated every single source on firearms available. Zortwort (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is an abstract from an AFTE (Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners) Journal publication stating that modification of the AR-15 to support select-fire mode requires drilling a .120 in hole in the receiver to accept the M16 auto sear. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=106641 Zortwort (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty straightforword, no need for drama on a noncontroversial technical fact. But the upside at least a editor now has more knowledge on the article topic.Carrytheloadto (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

JzG, there is no consensus supporting removal of TTAG as a source for a technical, non-controversial claim. [[64]] Springee (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. The uncontroversial claim can stay if you like, the unreliable source can't. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Look at the discussion above, consensus above favors keeping it as a reliable source for this material. The RSN discussion did not conclude TTAG was unreliable for technical facts. You can't just say it's not reliable and call it good. Consensus has to support that view. TTAG is the easier of the two sources to read since it cuts to the chase vs is just a manual that obliquely includes the information. Springee (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

/s/consensus/agreement of like minded editors/. This is a site that promotes conspiracist nonsense. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Where do you claim this consensus exists? It didn't exist here nor at RSN. Springee (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Jzg is suggesting that the consensus that TTAG is reliable for technical claims is invalid because those who arrived at it are apparently "like-minded" and therefor "conspiracist," not that alternative consensus exists. I believe that's what he's saying, anyway, Springee (correct me if I'm wrong Jzg). I believe he's saying that his opinion that TTAG is unreliable in totality overrides the fact that a majority of other editors involved in the discussion believe it is completely reliable for technical claims. Why not contribute to the discussion, Jzg, rather than just reverting edits against the consensus reached in the talk sections? Zortwort (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Zortwort, Slatersteven, Carrytheloadto, Guy has opened a discussion at RSN without pinging this discussion. This is the third time this year Guy has opened such a discussion. Link to topic [[65]] Springee (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick correction, the previous discussion found that this source is not usable for statements of fact. By my reading, only you and PacManEng specifically said it could be used for technical details; JzG, myself, Ronz, Mjolnirpants, and dlthewave all expressed, in some form or another, that it couldn't. An WP:RFC might be necessary if you refuse to accept that consensus, but it seemed very clear-cut to me at the time. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you here to grave dance? "refuse to accept" is an accusation of bad faith. Springee (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)