Wikipedia

Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 5

< Talk:Colt AR-15
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Slatersteven in topic No splitting history
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

RfC: AR-15 style rifle subsection

Latest comment: 6 years ago138 comments24 people in discussion
No consensus. Opinions are equally divided. This closure was requested at WP:AN. Sandstein 15:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Should the Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle subsection briefly summarize the content on the AR-15 style rifle page? Specifically, the relation between such rifles and the Colt version, some details on variations, how widespread they are, and most especially their use in mass shootings. 23:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

That subsection should briefly summarize the AR-15 style rifle page, as is standard. The most important elements of that article should be mentioned (if briefly). Those are the relation between such rifles and the Colt version, some details on variations, how widespread they are, and their use in mass shootings (which is arguably the most important of all, considering the depth and breadth of interest in that). Waleswatcher (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason this section needs to summarize the parent article. Instead this section describes how the patented Colt AR-15 evolved into the generic rifles. As such it doesn't need information about the various calibers and barrel length available to generic rifles derived from the Colt rifle. Nor do we need the NY times opinion on generic AR-15s. Now per BRD restoring the old material is justified. What isn't is keeping the material you added since that isn't a long term part of the article and was immediately disputed. You should have started this talk section instead of restoring the disputed edits. Springee (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Springee, thank you for responding on the talk page rather than continuing to edit war. The section I edited refers to Main article: AR-15 style rifle. As per standard wiki style, that section should briefly summarize its parent article, and my edit improved that summary. You appear to be advocating removing the section entirely or re-purposing it. Such a major change certainly requires consensus and perhaps a broader discussion. As for the NYT source, it is a news article and a reliable source per wiki, not an opinion piece. But if you believe we need more sources for that statement, there are certainly tens and possibly hundreds. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The edit war you started? Sorry, the section is describing how generic AR's came about after the Colt parents expired. We can leave the politics out. Springee (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
We can leave the politics out - ?? This is not a policy-based argument. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:WEIGHT. Clearly topical for the subsection and follows WP:SUMMARY style, with more information available in the AR-15 article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, so much has been written about the politics in relation to this gun that it's an NPOV violation to try to leave it out. And as I've said before, you can't escape controversy by spinning off daughter articles. The controversy comes with it. Geogene (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: First WW's addition was edit warring since the editor didn't go to the talk page when the material was reverted. Second, this is an article about a specific make and model rifle. It is not the general AR-15 article so the generic politics don't need to be here. The new material doesn't describe the link between the Colt rifle and the generic rifles thus is off topic. Springee (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per Geogene and K.e.coffman. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The content has no direct correlation to the article. -72bikers (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Forum shopping: In February almost the exact same content was rejected from the article. [[1]]. Unless there is a reason to believe that consensus has changed this previous discussion applies here. Springee (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ping editors involved in February's discussion of this material (who aren't above) @Drmies, Ansh666, Niteshift36, PackMecEng, Red Rock Canyon, Limpscash, RAF910, and Thewolfchild: Springee (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
You have just engaged in WP:votestacking. Please stop. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
No, per WP:APPNOTE, notification of editors involved with previous discussions of the same or closely related topics is appropriate notification. I notified all editors involved with last Feb's discussion regarding the inclusion of the same source and passage you added earlier today. Since all involved editors, not just those one one side or the other were notified this isn't votestacking. Springee (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Except you didn't. For instance, you did not notify dlthewave, who (and this is just a guess, but an informed one based on previous posts) likely would have been on the other side. So, it appears you only notified the editors you believed would support you. That is WP:Votestacking.
Failing to ping Dlthewave was an oversight. However, the Port Arthur discussion was unrelated and thus notifying those editors would be possible canvassing. Also Tom wasn't pinged so now we have potential canvassing. Springee (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The editors pinged by Springee all !voted Oppose. Pinging all others who participated in the discussion @London Hall, Fluous, JustinFranks, and Icewhiz: –dlthewave ☎ 19:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Did those editors vote on the Proposal 1? Springee (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, dlthewave, it's kind of unfair to attack Springee for leaving out those four editors. He did ping every editor who contributed to the previous discussion about the topic of this discussion. Except you, which I will assume was an honest mistake. Those four editors you pinged didn't participate in the discussion about the section in this article about AR-15 style rifles, the subject of this current discussion. They don't necessarily fit the criteria Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic just because they commented on the talk page on a different issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
On review I still missed Dlthewave's edit. The third time I looked I saw it. It was a nonvoting reply buried in a back and forth. Springee (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The whole votestacking claim is actually a bit humorous. It shows we keep discussing this and have to go through this exercise every time some editor who have done zero work on this article breezes in and decides his/her POV needs inserted. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mass-shootings committed with the use of other weapons are not sufficiently related to the topic of this article to merit inclusion. And for now I've removed the content that Waleswatcher added. The material you added was challenged, and is currently in under discussion, so please do not edit war to re-add until you have consensus. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Edited apparently I'm blind, sorry for the obviously unnecessary ping. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The relationship between AR-15-style rifles and mass shootings is obviously a big deal; to exclude it from a brief summary has no justification. Fluous (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This article isn't about AR-15 style rifles. That is a separate topic and does include the material in question. Springee (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
There would be no AR-15 style rifles without AR-15 rifles. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a measured summary. The AR-15 is notable for being what it is, which includes its ease of use and accessibility, which in turn help explain the enormous popularity of the weapon and its derivatives among mass murderers. Of course there is a direct correlation, as the sources bear out. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
True but that doesn't mean than information goes into this article. Remember, this isn't meant to be a lead type summary of the AR-15 type rifle article. This section section simply states where the generic rifles came from. Springee (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Please let other people talk. You're monopolizing the discussion. All I see is "Springee this," "Springee that," and meta-discussions about Springee's conduct. Fluous (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
How is it relevant? Remember this section only exists to explain how generic AR-15s evolved out of expired patents. Springee (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what it is you're supporting Dlthewave. The article already includes a summary of how AR-15 style rifles evolved from the AR-15. Indeed, it has two paragraphs dedicated to that alone. The request isn't to summarize, it's to copy across. Note that this material in AR-15 style rifle (added yesterday and contentious) is near identical to the second half or so of the material added here (also added yesterday, and also contentious). The first part (about being beloved and reviled) is, I think, unique and does not come from the other article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you like to suggest some other wording that summarizes the role of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings? That could be helpful. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"Port Arthur stuff particularly relevant" ? It is, but generally, not particularly. I've worked 2 weeks on it and general problems with sources could not be solved. See te complete section of Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose If they are not the AR-15 it has no place here. Change to Support, as I did not know what I was talking about when I made this vote.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So you want the article to deliberately go against the guideline WP:SYNC? That's fine, just want to be sure that's what you're saying. Or are you opposed to the wording I proposed (which is not actually a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle) for some other reason? Waleswatcher (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say that... you did. - theWOLFchild 01:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposish - Not a hard opposition but seems not necessary to do so and seems more an issue than a benefit. I see no policy basis guiding towards such, it seems contrary to practices done at similar "Main article" pointers, and I see no mention of a functional reason or benefit for making such a restriction on what gets said here. It seems proposing this article part be limited to a duplication of content on just the basis of saying that "should" be rather than showing a point to it being in this article. For comparison, we do not have a duplication when the Dodge Caravan points at the Fifth generation section subsection of Volkswagen Routan . I see the mention of WP:SYNC but think it not appropriate since AR-15-Style is not a sub-article WP:CFORK of the Colt AR-15 -- it is the larger and later separate topic of things by separate makers in apparently further evolution. (Or patent feature or a kind of label -- it's not clearly stated what the AR-15 "style" is or where the usage "AR-15 style" started & applies to.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of moving these questions to below what has become a survey section above. I hope the involved editors do not mind. With this I also removed an edit break from the section above Springee (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
(no objection here, there is still some type of edit break here, which is needed, so no problem. - wolf 02:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC))
  • Question for those opposed: Given WP:SYNC, specifically

"Since the lead of any article should be the best summary of the article, it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section, with a {main} hatnote pointing to the subarticle."

what exactly are you suggesting? Are you saying we should intentionally not follow that guideline? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You need to slow down and take your cues from the community and project p&g. You don't just get to do whatever you want. - theWOLFchild 01:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
That goes for you, too. You don't just get to ignore clear and simple policies guidlines like WP:SYNC. Nor does it particularly matter how many editors agree with you if they do not have any valid arguments. What matters is logic and wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI - wp:sync isn't a policy, it's a guideline. - wolf
"That goes for you, too." - Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but I haven't attempted to add, alter or remove any content from any firearm article, and not just to suit my personal preferences, but at all. - theWOLFchild 23:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
"I haven't...remove[d] any content from any firearm article...at all." Huh - so what exactly is this, then? Waleswatcher (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a revert, of a single, disputed word, that is/was currently being discussed on the talk page and should not have been re-added at that time, if at all. (I would think that was obvious and not in need of explanation). Look, you made a comment that basically says "if I can't have my way, I'll just go do it my way, anyway", to which I replied; "It doesn"t work that way...", which for some strange reason you then replied "same goes for you". I was simply pointing out that I hasn't made any content changes, nor was I threatening to, if I didn't get my way, which made your retort kinda' pointless. - theWOLFchild 05:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You made a mistake (in saying you hadn't removed any content at all). Just own it, it's OK. As for your edit being a revert of something that "should not have been re-added", that's a falsehood. That word was in the article for some time. User:72bikers took it out (without any comment either on the talk page or in the edit summary, which also changed some other things), I put it back as it was, ..., and you reverted my revert. You were the one going against BRD and insisting on removing content that had been there for a while (without discussion or consensus), not me.
Again, I'm happy to collaborate with you and anyone else on this page, but the tendentious attitude here makes it very hard. It seems the only way to make progress may be to be bold, get reverted, try to discuss it, document a complete unwillingness to engage with the issues, and then go to an RFC. If that's where this is going, so be it, but I'd much rather not as it's a waste of everyone's time. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ww; "Mistake"...? No, I posted a fact. And your contributions to this article and participation on this talk page can hardly be called "collaboration", so own that. Now go post your RfC, it can't be anymore of a waste of time than this dog's breakfast of a tp 'discussion'... -wolf 17:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Waleswatcher my edit in the area of the one word removed had a edit summary. I have also addressed that edit here on the talk page with my explanation, when question arose so lets be clear.
Your argumentative tone on trivial matters is really reading as uncivil. You again state it is only you that has the knowledge to judge what should or should not be in the article. You again state you will do whatever you want regardless of consequences. You also state if you are not allowed to get your way you will go tell. You are aware you do not own the article right? This all read as uncivil and disruptive.
I again ask you to please do not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia. -72bikers (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should consider that these editors aren't ignoring it... well not exactly. They aren't applying it because that isn't the scope of the section. You are correct, what matters is logic and wiki policy. You should also understand that reasonable people can disagree. Springee (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I think this explains why you don't understand the objections you mentioned here [[2]]. You are assuming, incorrectly, that this subtopic of the Colt AR-15 article is meant to be a summary of the generic AR-15 article. If that were true I would somewhat agree with your intent. Not the edits you added the other day but the idea that this section and the AR-15 style rifle lead should be in sync. However, the section in question is not meant to summarize the topic of generic AR-15 style rifles. It is only meant to tell users how IP that was originally controlled by Colt became generic to the extent that other manufactures can copy it without license. So the only content that is relevant in that section is content that supports that scope.

There is no SYNC concern because this isn't a parent article spinning off a subsection into a child-article nor the reverse. Consider the topic of the IBM PC. It is the common ancestor of basically all Wintel computers. That doesn't mean Microsoft Windows or Wintel are child articles of the IBM PC article. The IBM PC article talks about the rise of clones just as it relates to the IBM PC. It doesn't go into the way the rise of clone computers greatly expanded the range of PC options, configurations nor drove down the cost of hardware nor how the clones lead to the rise of the Wintel platform. It doesn't mention Wintel controversies such as various MS and Intel PC anti trust complaints. The point being what is important in the IBM PC article as with the article here is in context of the article subject, not the larger picture. In context of the Colt AR-15 topic the section talks about how the design became generic. Not what happened after the design became generic or how non-Colt AR-15 style rifles were used. What happened after is covered in or linked from the AR-15 style rifle article.

I would strongly suggest you not make the change you just proposed. You now have two editors who have directly stated that is not acceptable and we have a number of editors above who have raised objections that would clearly cover such a change. Springee (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, your rearrangement disconnected my question from the response it was attached to. Now it's much more difficult to understand what was said when. Please refrain from editing other user's comments on talk pages.

As I mentioned in my note you are welcome to reverse the change. However, I would also suggest that you not put what appeared to be a general question in the middle of what has become a survey section. Your general question was all but guaranteed to hurt readability of the discussion. Your question was directed at "those opposed" not a single editor. Springee (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding WP:SYNC, you assert "You are assuming, incorrectly, that this subtopic of the Colt AR-15 article is meant to be a summary of the generic AR-15 article. If that were true I would somewhat agree with your intent." I do not need to assume that, because it says as much in the article. The section is titled "AR-15 style rifle", and the first line underneath is "Main article: AR-15 style rifle". Case closed. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you are still failing to see the scope of the section. It wouldn't make sense to treat the AR-15 style rifle as a child of this article. Adding a link to the main article doesn't mean this is meant to be a summary of the AR-15 article. Please take context and the comments of other editors in mind when considering such things. It would avoid some of these issues in the future. Springee (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about it being s child. I said that the section titled "AR-15 style rifle", with first line "Main article: AR-15 style rifle", is a summary of AR-15 style rifle. Are you seriously disputing that? Waleswatcher (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Those don't mean the section is meant to summarize the other article. This is wrong on several levels. The context of the previous discussions which you didn't consult before adding nearly the same text could have been an aid. The content of the section also should have made it clear since the first thing it takes about was the patents. SYNC applies to parent-child articles where a subtopic is spun out. It doesn't universally apply. Previous editors were trying to be helpful by making it clear there exists a general AR-15 article vs this one about the Colt rifle. They also wanted to discuss the connection between. This is why the content was rejected. It's out of scope for this article. Springee (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
OK - your position seems clear. Just to be sure, you maintain that the section titled "AR-15 style rifle", with first line "Main article: AR-15 style rifle", is NOT a summary of AR-15 style rifle, and for that reason is not subject to WP:SYNC. Is that accurate? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There's no reason that we "must" or "must not" use summary style. It's a content decision that can be discussed, and either outcome would be acceptable regardless of the original intent of this section. Several of the !voters above point out that it currently seems to be in summary style and support keeping it that way. –dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct. The notion that a section titled "AR-15 style rifle", with first line "Main article: AR-15 style rifle", cannot be edited so as to accurately summarize the article AR-15 style rifle is simply nonsensical. Unless there are actual substantive objections (beyond "that's not the way I want it"), I will go ahead and do that as per WP:SYNC. If necessary, I can take this to a wider audience via an RFC or something. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Look at the article history. The section clearly was intended to explain the split, not to be a general history. The edit you propose would be wp:reckless given the clear lakelack of support above (edit: strike through comment because WW seems to feel that such a minor correction can not be made without a strike through). This is the exact same issue @PackMecEng: and I are warning you about here [[3]] Springee (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no "clear lake of support" - there was no consensus on the change I proposed, but the support and oppose are almost evenly split. In retrospect that may have been because the change I proposed was not clearly a summary of the relevant article. As for the original intent in creating that subsection, even if you are correct it is irrelevant. It clearly makes sense to have a summary section of the AR 15 style rifle article here, and in fact there is one, so let's make it an actual summary as it should be. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I will point out your theories are just your own opinions not shared by all. The persisytance to display another editors spelling mistake and dismissiveness to other editors is not conducive to a legitimate civil discussion. I ask you to please not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia. -72bikers (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
72bikers, I'm happy to collaborate and hear your opinion. It clearly makes sense for this article to have a section summarizing AR-15 style rifles in general, and there already is such a section. The easiest way to update it is to just copy over the lead section of that article, that's what WP:SYNC says. The lead already is a summary, and when one article is updated, it's easy to update the other one. If there's some inappropriate or wrong information, you can just remove it from the lead of AR-15 style rifles and copy the new version over here. Make sense? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't even see where you had any interest in the article a week ago. Today, you're setting ultimatums for it (if I don't get my way, I'm making this change). So you'll have to excuse me if I don't completely believe your willingness to collaborate. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Care to comment on substance, rather than casting aspersions and failing to assume good faith? Waleswatcher (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As the others have already pointed out, pointing out what you've said and done isn't an aspersion. You don't understand BRD and I have commented on the substance...all the other times we've had this discussion with every other editor coming in to 'save' the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not an aspersion; you did, point blank, threaten to engage in disruptive editing if the discussion didn't go your way. Quote: By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC, and Diff: Special:diff/841090940. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing disruptive about that. It would be standard WP:BRD - except that I'm announcing what I'm intending to do (and why) in advance so it can be discussed, which makes it more careful (and less bold) than wiki standard. Now, do you care to comment on substance, or are you going to continue to be tendentious? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
No it wouldn't be standard BRD. It'd be you switching tack in hopes of forcing your preference through. By definition, it would be disruption. I've addressed what you said. Tendentious means partisan, just fyi. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
"I've addressed what you said." - where? Waleswatcher (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
BRD does not say you can make an edit without consensus, it says you do not need to seek it. Once you have sought it and it is not present it does not allow you to make an edit. Any opposed edit (and this is clearly opposed) must first get consensus before being made. I would susgest you do not go ahead and make this edit, you will likely get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, but where precisely do you get that from? Per WP:BRD:

BRD is especially successful where:

  • ... local consensus differs from global consensus, and your goal is to apply global consensus.
  • ... people haven't really thought things through yet.
  • ... people are only discussing policy or theory, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus.
  • ... people are talking past each other instead of getting down to brass tacks with concrete proposals

Several of the above apply here, particularly the first and last ones.Waleswatcher (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK lets put it another way, you quote the part where it says you can edit if you do not have clear consensus on the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That's the whole point of the entire BRD protocol! But if you really want a quote, here's one: "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." In this case, there was no consensus for or against the edit I made (survey was 11-9), and the discussion has clearly bogged down. So, per this policy I can attempt a new "bold" edit that may help move things forward. In this case it would be to copy the lead verbatim from AR-15 style rifle. That has a clear justification per WP:SYNC, by contrast to my previous edit which was arguably ad hoc or undue in some way. If the new edit gets reverted again, I guess the next move is to start an RFC. Now, do you really consider that "disruptive"? It seems to me it conforms perfectly to BRD. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
WW your behavior is still exactly the same, you have not heard anything I have said or asked " dismissiveness to other editors is not conducive to a legitimate civil discussion. I ask you to please not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia."
You seems to feel only you are able to understand policies. These issues and others are part of why I tried to be helpful and post a link to information of policies you appeared to not be able to fully grasp. You stated that was harassment and you felt you needed to leave a warning and in turn proceeded to haharass me. I also see you have not yet grasped you do not have the right to do this as you repeated this with Springee, after he specifically asked you not to do this. All of these issues speak to being uncivil and disruptive.
You clear satated that you would do whatever you want regardless of what others felt and would ignore consensus. I again ask you to please not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia. -72bikers (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
72bikers, the last time you posted a comment like this, I replied that I'm happy to collaborate with you, and I politely asked your opinion on the edit I am proposing. You ignored me. In your next post you are again claiming I'm the one that's disruptive. Sorry, but that's not how it looks from where I sit. Can you please engage with the issues? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Except this "new" edit has already been rejected, so we know already what will happen.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not the same edit, nor was the old one rejected - there was a stalemate. But if you really feel trying one new edit would be "disruptive" (I do not agree, this endless talk page back and forth is far more so than one edit and a possible revert), I could take this directly to an RFC instead. The question would be whether the AR-15 style rifle subsection here should be "synced" to its main article a la WP:SYNC. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
What the hell does that mean? hat tells me nothing about what you want to include. You could always post your proposed edit here and let us see how "different" it is form what you have added before.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle per WP:SYNC? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
So you have already made this edit?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
No. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, you only "Added info from the lede of the main article", rather then the whole lead. So just expanding the material so you can still add this is not changing what you wanted to add. It is just adding more padding around it, and that to me is not a "new". And it will get reverted again.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you edited your comment while I was responding, but anyway here's what I wrote.

OK. In your opinion, which is preferable - make the edit, and if it doesn't get reverted (or there is constructive editing/discussion) great, and if it does start an RFC, or just start an RFC without trying the edit first? I think it's pretty obvious the first option is better a la BRD, but I respect your point of view and I guess you may disagree. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, BRD (to my mind) should only be used to generate debate about a suggested edit. We already know there is going to be a debate because the idea has already (before you have made the edit) been rejected. So that mean s the only was forwards if (if you really want one ) an RFC. It will save time and avert another edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. In that case I'll start an RfC or village pump discussion on this specific question: Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle per WP:SYNC? Waleswatcher (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please consider WP:FORUMSHOP before deciding how and where to raise this question or even what the question should be. While the above discussion was not the exact same question you are now suggesting, it is close and would represent the 3rd time it was raised in as many months. Do you think the initial rejection or the current lack of consensus was based on the particular text? Would your proposed change result in some of the above changing their opinions/reasons? The survey above was well attended so I don't think we could justify a RfC based on limited feedback to the above question. Springee (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. But as you say it's not really the same question, and it has the clear advantage that if there is a consensus in favor, as a "sync" it's a permanent solution - there need not be any more such discussions, at least not over this page. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Not that I agree with your assesment of the validity of this potential post of yours, but let's say you do post your "new and completely different" question and there is a clear consensus against you... will you accept it and finally drop this? Or will you; A) continue to argue it to death? B) threaten to make your edit anyway? C) just post your question all over again, just slightly tweaked, on a different page, a couple of days later? D) all of the above?
By the way you keep saying there's "no consensus" with the "11-9" outcome. You do realize that it's not a vote? It's the quality of the arguments that determines consensus, including with straw polls. Instead of doing this all over again, perhaps an uninvolved admin should review the 11-9 debate and determine if there is consensus, and possibly save us all the trouble of debating this all over again. Anyone have any thoughts on this? - theWOLFchild 00:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose cherrypicked bleedover - responding to ping by Nil Einne. I'm more about stopping the Bronco cahse being kept to the OJ article and out of the Bronco article ... but same thing here -- that it is UNDUE given the small percentage of the topic for the article and OFFTOPIC of the article, and in this case adds that people are doing OR by cherrypicking what parts to include. You might make a case for See Also -- but not for replicating the same content over & over at every article that coincidentally uses the same word as something in the content being replicated. Also, if you're going to summarize another article it should be done according to prominence in that other article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
but not for replicating the same content over & over at every article that coincidentally uses the same word as something in the content being replicated What the hell? You realize that the Colt AR-15 is an AR-15 rifle, right? It's not "coincidence" that one word ("AR-15") occurs in both articles. Articles are not random collections of words. The selection and arrangement of words confers meaning. Geogene (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
All Colt AR-15's are AR-15's, not all AR-15's are Colt AR-15's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
+1 and some are war-weapons like M16 rifle. For people who don't know the interconnections it's just too hard to understand. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The m-16 is a developed of the AR-15, and thus us as much an AR-15 as any other derivative, which is my point.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
You're confusing yourself. The ArmaLite AR15 was select fire and developed into the M16. Different company. This is the Colt AR15. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
So not that much dissimilar (apart from full Auto capabilities then (say) the LM308MWS then, made by a different company?Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
What does similarity have to do with anything? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
OK lets word it another way the LM308MWS is not made by Colt and yet is still an AR-15 style rifle, so why would being made by a different company affect whether or not is is an AR-15 style rifle? But I think I was saying that, a few functional or cosmetic dissimilarities do not affect whether or not is is an AR-15 derivative.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, what are you talking about? Everyone hear that knows what they're talking about understands the difference between an AR-15 and an AR-15 style rifle. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Niteshift36 and Slatersteven: Slatersteven is correct and Niteshift36 is wrong on this. Niteshift, you wrote "The ArmaLite AR15 was select fire and developed into the M16. Different company. This is the Colt AR15." It's true that Armalite marketed its rifle to the army, but it was rejected. Colt bought the rights to the design and the name in 1959, and had the army take another look. The army eventually accepted the design in '64, and Colt then started offering a "civilian version of the M-16, which it called the AR-15". All that is discussed here. [4] Waleswatcher (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Both of you spout sentences you read somewhere and don't appreciate the actual differences between the Armalite AR15 and the Colt AR15. At this point, this tangent has nothing to offer in terms of improving the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Did I say anything to the contrary? What I said was that whilst all Colt AR-15's are AR-15 derivatives (is this incorrect are they derivative BAR or M-14 derivatives?), not (the clue is in the word, not) all AR-15's are colt AR-15's. What about that statement is in correct?Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Sir, the AR-15 has absolutely nothing to do with with the BAR or the M14 rifle. Again, (per your talk page discussion) I ask that stop editing a subject that you clearly know nothing about.--RAF910 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Try and read what people have written.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It would probably be helpful to have, even if just on the talk page, a timeline/history of the Armalite AR-15 vs Colt M-16 vs Colt Ar-15 etc. My understanding from rough memory etc, is Armalite made the AR-15 (select fire rifle). They weren't able to get a buyer and needed money so they sold the design to Colt. Colt then changed some details and released both the select fire M-16 (not sure what Colt called it internally since the M-16 name would have come from the military). Colt also released a semi-auto only version which was the Colt AR-15. So I think it is fair to say both Colt rifles are close derivatives of the Armalite AR-15. I suspect Colt initially focused on making the military select fire version (ie the M-16). After it was done they redesigned the M-16 to make it semi-auto only and make it non-trivial to convert to select fire (not a case of just dropping in parts). If I'm correct then the evolution was Armalite AR-15 -> Colt M-16 -> Colt AR-15 -> (patents expire) generic clone AR-15s not authorized by Colt (nearly part by part identical) -> generic AR-15 pattern rifles that include significant deviations from the original model including changed gas systems, changed cartridge types, etc. Anyway, it may be helpful if we could find a source to outline this lineage. It would be useful both in this article and the AR-15 style rifle article. I'll see if I can find a RS saying something like that this evening. Springee (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Springee: This source discusses the early history of that, if not in great detail [5] . Waleswatcher (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
When sources discuss AR-15 rifles, they are referring to Colt AR-15s, as well as all other civilian makes. "AR-15" is a category, "Colt AR-15" is a member of that category. Geogene (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
But when they discus Colt AR-15's do they mean all AR-15's?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
You have just accidentally discovered the heart of matter. All of those "reliable sources" that some editors are constantly ranting about are incompetent on the subject matter. They don't know what they are talking about. They only know that AR-15s are scary looking and shoot fast. And, they make no effort to give accurate information.--RAF910 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
So how many of them confuse AR-15's with Colts?Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Sir, your question confirms that you have little to no firearms knowledge. Again, you are relying on sources of information that are incompetent on the subject matter. They don't know what they are talking about. They only know that AR-15s are scary looking and shoot fast. And, they make no effort to give accurate information.--RAF910 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, as obviously I do not know enough about the subject my vote must have been wrong so I will change it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC).Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I could not concur more with RAF's last statement. It is also nice to see editors are open to reason and willingness to a civil rational discussion. -72bikers (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I have now changed my vote based upon my previous lack of understanding of the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • [User_talk:Waleswatcher]] - WP:SYNC is not applicable for several reasons. First, that is a guideline for content forks which would be for subsections of the Colt article, not the case here. Second, folks often do not do this option to say a summary of what was broken off - just not what the parent wants. Third, what is at the style article lead just is not a summary of that article. And fourth, this article already has text -- so no need to consider options for wording questions already solved. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit break)

In terms of vote count, with that change it's now 10-10, a dead heat. In terms of arguments, more or less all the editors opposed argue that no mass shooting should be mentioned unless it was committed with a Colt AR-15. On the other hand, this article has a section about AR-15 style rifles in general, and that's where the edit was. No argument has been advanced for why that section should not mention the mass shootings in which (non-Colt) AR-15 rifles were used, other than "that's not the way I want(ed) it." The argument for inclusion is very clear - those mass shootings are mentioned in the lead of the main AR-15 style article, and for a good reason - they are extremely notable, and leaving them out would be a violation of NPOV. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
You are wrong about "other than that's not the way I want it". It's entirely reasonable to say we don't need to include material that is tangentially related to the subject of the article in this article. As you have been told by several editors, and as the history of the article shows, the AR-15 style rifle section is meant to show how the generic rifle was derived from the Colt rifle. Claiming it was meant to be a summary of the AR-15 style rifle in general is a self serving claim that isn't supported by the edit history of the article and consensus doesn't support making that change to the article. No reason to discuss it further. Springee (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"the history of the article" (meaning, the way I/other editors wanted it) - why is that even relevant, let alone an argument? Is this article some kind of walled garden that can't be intruded on or changed? That's just not the way wikipedia works.
In an article on Colt AR-15s it clearly makes sense to have a section summarizing AR-15 style rifles in general. The very fact that there is plenty of confusion regarding what is or is not a Colt AR-15 versus "AR-15 style" strengthens that. And if that section is WP:SYNCed to the lead of the AR-15 style article, we can put an end to this seemingly endless debate here. Note that if, at some time, mentions of mass shootings are removed from the lead of the AR-15 style article, they'd be removed here too. So it's a completely neutral proposal in that sense. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It's like... deja vu... - wolf 20:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is very confusing to people who don't know what they are talking about. So, let's make is simple. The "COLT AR-15" is a semi-automatic rifle made by "Colt's Manufacturing Company." The term "AR-15 style rifle" was invented by a handful of Wikipedia editors to describe similar rifles made by other manufactures.--RAF910 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Our article was created on 12/12/12, this [6] is from 2 years before, so no we did not invent the term.Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's 10-10? Guess what? This isn't a vote. "No argument has been advanced for why..."? Except for all the other times we've discussed this. I'll be blunt here: It's pretty arrogant for you to act like no previous discussions happened. The simple fact is that you've really brought nothing new to the table, yet you demand everyone jump through all your hoops. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"It's 10-10? Guess what? This isn't a vote." My point precisely, thanks for agreeing. The vote is a tie, but the arguments in favor of inclusion (or simply syncing) are much stronger. Anyway, when I get around to it I will take this to a larger audience at the village pump, so there's not much point in continuing to discuss it here now. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What I "agree" with is that there's no consensus to add what you want. Now you resort to forum shopping. No shocker there. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As you've already be told, that could be considered forum shopping. And, as you've also already been told, it would probably be more advisable for you to request an uninvolved admin (at WP:ANRFC) to review the discussion here and determine if there is a consensus. Actually, anybody could do that, and in fact, if someone were to go do that, like right now, it just might help bring this... situation... to an end. (I'd do it myself, but... I got a... thing... at the... whatsis... so... busy). - theWOLFchild 20:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
AS I see it the above conversation has drawn to a close, we know who thinks what. Now we either need fresh input or an admin to make a decision as to which side has achieved consensus. So it seems to me we either have an RFC to attract fresh eyes (I would prefer there to be an understanding that those of us who have already expressed an opinion are assumed to hold the same opinion unless they change it, so as to not glog up the RFC with the same arguments), or we close.Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No splitting history

Latest comment: 6 years ago73 comments11 people in discussion

My edit summary doesn't seem to have populated properly. In short, there's no good reason to split the one line about the Australian long gun restrictions from the rest of the history section. It's a part of the history of the firearm, and we shouldn't be burying it in a section at the bottom. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually there may be as a notable controversy that changed nations law. It can thus be argued it deserved its own section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If it were expanded into an in depth section it would maybe be warranted. But as a repository for a single-line mention I think it's better in History. I would not oppose an expansion though. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I will politely ask @72bikers: to self-revert as they are reinserting a reverted edit of an issue currently under discussion at talk. Again. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Expansion may be a good idea, any suggestions?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
We could provide some context surrounding the attack, like a one-para summary wikilinking to the main attack article; but also it looks like the use of the word "high capacity" may be unnecessary in that sentence. If I'm reading the source correctly, Australia banned all self-loading rifles and shotguns, not just high-capacity ones. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, if we do fork off the section on this facet of the history of the weapon, it should follow immediately after the history section rather than being buried under technical specifications. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
OK seems good.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
You are attempting to circumvent the above consensus on this matter. I would remind you that you may be sanction for your actions. Restoring original research is also a sanctionable offense. I could care less of your actions, that would appear to be just trying to get a rise out of me. Your anger would seem to be clouding your judgment, I would advise you to tread lightly. -72bikers (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't understand how consensus works. What we're doing here is establishing a consensus. The fact that there's a talk topic here where we're discussing revisions to that text is precisely how you're supposed to do this sort of thing. Now if you have something constructive to contribute to this discussion, please do. But cut it out with the veiled threats. WP:BATTLEGROUND exists for a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The consensus was about inclusion, not location. I undid an edit that did not only removed OR and I have not undone your removal now that is all you have done (72 bikers).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If you choose to get blocked so be it. Have fun with that. You would also appear to be using I'm rubber your glue, as far as warnings. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is for discussion of improvements to the article, any comments about users have no place here. I am asking all users to stop, you do not issue warnings here. As such I will simply ignore them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed revised text

Section head = Port Arthur massacre, immediately following History section:

From 28-29 April, 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured 23 more in a mass shooting which became known as the the Port Arthur massacre, during which he used a Colt AR-15 and a .308 FN rifle. It was one of the deadliest mass shootings in Australian history and resulted in the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996 which restricted the ownership of all self-loading rifles and shotguns.[1][2][3] In addition, the Australian government initiated a mandatory "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in through this program.[4]

Sources

  1. ^ "Firearms in Australia: a guide to electronic resources". aph.gov.au. Commonwealth of Australia. 9 August 2007. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
  2. ^ "How Australia Passed Gun Control: The Port Arthur Massacre and Beyond". Foreign Affairs. October 13, 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
  3. ^ Wahlquist, Calla (14 March 2016). "It took one massacre: how Australia embraced gun control after Port Arthur". The Guardian.
  4. ^ "Firearms Regulations FAQ". Attorney General's Department. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved March 2, 2016.

Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep can go with that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose location, OK with content: Rewinding to where this started, I understand it looks odd to have the Port Arthur single sentence hanging out by itself and it does make sense to incorporate it into the history section even though that isn't what typically goes in the history section of a firearms article. The format of firearms articles generally is intro followed by a history of development, followed by operation of the mechanism and typically use/controversies etc towards the end of the article. Basically we say what it is and it's development history first. The politics stuff goes later. Here we had the Port Arthur as a stand alone section which does look odd as a one liner. However, we also have previous debate and consensus regarding how much Port Arthur content should be here vs in the primary article. Consensus only specifically supported the one sentence but as a stand alone section these new changes aren't out of hand so I wouldn't object to the addition. However, if we are going to expand the Port Arthur material then I would say it goes back to the end of the article were it was last week (previous consensus location), not right after history, above operation etc. This order of presentation is something that was discussed previously (but I don't recall if it was here or at the AR-15 article). Springee (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question What's the rationale for burying the most historically notable thing about the gun at the bottom of the article after a step-by-step on how to break down the gun? That doesn't seem appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
First (and not in any particular order) is previous consensus. I don't see that we have consensus to change this. Second, is that we have used this format for many articles so it helps consistency. Third is we have to distinguish between the significance of the event (high) and the significance of the event to the subject of the article (what impact did the shooting have to the subject of the article?). This is a point I've raised a number of times and it's interesting that consensus is very clear on this in other context. My go to example is a combination RfC I was involved with.[[7]] While the Oklahoma City bombing was without question very notable and the use of a Ford F-600 to carry out the bombing was a critical part of the story, editors were overwhelmingly against inclusion of the bombing in the truck's article. The consensus was clear that in context of the subject the bombing wasn't significant. That same argument is stands here. Springee (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
And there is a world of difference between something being used, and something actually affecting a nations laws. And no and RFC on one topic has no impact on anther topic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The comparison at the end might hold more weight if Ford F-600s were designed to be bombs. That being said, consensus can change, and I would suggest that a whole class of firearms getting banned in a previously pro-gun jurisdiction as a result of a mass shooting perpetrated with the weapon in question is pretty significant to the history of the gun. Especially immediately following the line above this which deals with the American gun control legislation which briefly affected the sale of this gun. Unless we're suggesting that what happens to regulation in Australia is less notable than what happens to regulation in the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
(reply to both comments above)SS, the point remains the same, what was the impact to the Colt AR-15? The use of the Colt brand firearm (or even that it was an AR-15 type rifle) isn't widely associated with the crime. Look at the previous RfCs. This wasn't a snowball type RfC favoring inclusion. At the same time, the location was agreed upon after a big RfC so we shouldn't, as just a handful of editors, change that location. Simonm, yes, it's significant in the history of gun laws/ gun control but not as much in terms of the AR-15 itself. There is strong precedent in many articles for the previous layout. Background, what it is, then what happened when it was released. As an other example I was involved with, look at the Ford Pinto article. The Pinto is clearly and widely associated with gas tank fires. As such that was put in the intro but we still retained the traditional vehicle article layout starting with the history of the design, the tech details of the article then what happened once the vehicle was on the road. Springee (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm OK with the text. I just think the earlier order of presentation should be retained. Springee (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
So why then are USA laws there? They can be no more or less significant?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, it seems an artificial division to say that subsequently-deprecated firearm legislation in the USA is historically relevant to the gun but firearm legislation in Australia, currently in effect and drafted explicitly in response to the gun is not. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose change this has been discussed to death over and over again. The August 26 version is more than adequate.--RAF910 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the words "more than adequate" could be applied to cordoning off an important but inconvenient historical event at the bottom of the article where it's less likely to be read when there's equivalent end-results (weapons bans) kept in the history section with a more tenuous connection directly to the weapon in question. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Aright, then since you insist on doing this again. Lets start at the beginning..I vote to remove Port Arthur massacre section from the article altogether.--RAF910 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That is not what is being discussed, why is it that US law is considered a vital part of the weapons history but not Australian law? It should not be hard question to answer.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

We can discuss anything we want here. You have opened the door and I have made my proposal. I vote to remove Port Arthur massacre section from the article altogether.--RAF910 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose change: This has been discussed by a large number of editors and a conclusion has been made. Two editors don't get to state they have a consensus among themselves and make drastic changes to a controversial subject.
As to the content and placement my edit would address these issues raised [8] or something to this affect.
Though I would not object to just a see also. -72bikers (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
See Also seems to be a nice compromise. Although, I reserve the right to make a counter proposal.--RAF910 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support location and content: the natural evolution of existing content; would be an improvement. (Perhaps this should be converted to an RfC to draw a wider participation). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, let's have another RfC to discuss removing Port Arthur massacre section from the article altogether--RAF910 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this being proposed as an option? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I am open to an RFC on my proposed revision and placement; however before going out and notifying the appropriate wikiprojects, I'd suggest we hash out exactly what proposals we're putting forward. I would, for obvious reasons, put forward my proposal - location and content - as proposal 1 for the RFC, but if there are any others to include, let's hash that out now. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest we work to come up with a solution rather than starting yet another RfC. Personally I think this would be a bit like forum shopping. We recently closed an RfC on the subject. The material was placed and now that just enough editors have moved on or been blocked etc we are reopening virtually the same discussion. If nothing else, we currently don't have consensus for any change so things should be left alone. However, the concerns that kicked this off were not without merit. Expanding the PA material as Simon suggested seems like a good way to address the "one sentence section" concern. I'm also OK changing the name of the section and moving the 1994 ban material into a common section. However, there is strong precedent in other articles (firearms and others) as to the order of material presentation. Let's not screw with that. Springee (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If we're going to fork off all the legislative history of the AR-15 from the manufacturing history of the AR-15 then I think it's as important to be clear that the manufacturing history is just that and nothing else. And furthermore, I'd not support the section title of "Banned" as it's vague. However I'd accept this as a compromise.
Section headers 1: Manufacturing history; 2: Operating mechanism; 3: Features; 4: Impact on gun control legislation (including both of the gun ban related topics with my revised text for Port Arthur); 5: AR-15 Style Rifle

6 onward unchanged. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we are getting somewhere. I'm not sure "Impact on gun control legislation" is quite the right heading since I'm not sure the Ar-15 was causal in the 1994 AWB. If I recall that was set off by a crime committed with an AK pattern rifle. What about "Legislation and Prohibitions"? You won't hurt my feelings if you don't like it. Springee (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

72bikers moved both the 1994 AWB info and the Port Arthur material into a common section. I can think of justifications for keeping the AWB material in the history section (since it directly impacted the Colt Ar-15) but I'm indifferent on the location (in a section with PA or history). Springee (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Port Arthur massacre had no impact on the history of the Colt AR-15. It did not stop production. It did not force a redesign. All it did was prevent them from being imported into Australia. No differently than the other 170 countries that prohibit the importation of Colt AR-15s. Therefore, it is not worth mentioning. I vote to remove Port Arthur massacre section from the article altogether.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed it is a American product. What any one small country does to its own laws has no impact. A see also would be appropriate or at best some small mention as I presented. But clearly the attempt to force the content into the top of the page is not constructive. This has been debated to great lengths with a large number of editor. Were are the new sources that would change the views of its importance to the article. I feel editor are not doing the research needed for such drastic changes and just presenting there personal views. -72bikers (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. As @Springee: pointed out, whether or not to include the Port Arthur massacre was just subject to an RFC. Your attempts to piggyback discussion of my revision to that content into another crack at that can is dubious at best.Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was. I very specifically worded RfC which you are attempting to change. As a result you have opened the door to any other changes or proposals by other editors. I vote to remove Port Arthur massacre section from the article altogether.--RAF910 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
A revision does not invalidate the RfC - why the heck do you believe that's at all the case? As in, show your policy sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
So, what your saying is, that only your changes can be discussed and all other proposal violate some unnamed policy. Fascinating. I vote to remove Port Arthur massacre section from the article altogether. It had no impact on the history of the Colt AR-15 and was not the only weapon used that day. If an AK-47 was used instead, the results would had been the same.--RAF910 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The RFC was for inclusion, with a specific text suggested. Nothing in the decision however makes the text sacrosanct, as the question was about inclusion of a mention of the massacre, not the exact wording. However it can be argued that some may well have only said yes on the basis of the text. This however does not affect placement, which was not mentioned in the RFC. So I suggest we stop discussion about inclusion or re-writing of the text and discus only its placement.Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you were being sincere about these !votes you just !voted three times in a row. Just saying. I mean, I still contend that your argument that any revision of the copy vacates the original RfC to be patently absurd, but regardless, strike through your extra !votes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Those wishing to challenge the decision of the RFC need to inform all participating parties of the RFC the case has been reopened.Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support location and content: literally thousands of users come to this article looking for information on AR-15 use in mass shootings and find... nothing. Not only should we expand discussion of the Port Arthur shooting, we should direct users to the AR-15 style rifle page for information on the many others that involved an AR-15 style rifle (other than the Colt). The fact that we don't violates common sense, not to mention NPOV. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
PA has it's own article which is linked from this one so there is no reason to expand the content further than what is proposed. Linking to the AR-15 mass shooting material would make no sense as was previously discussed. Your claim that literally thousands of readers come here for that information is pure supposition and fails the sniff test. It was previously true when the general AR-15 search term landed here. That is no longer the case. Your comment doesn't justify the location within the article other than suggesting your personal preference while ignoring both previous consensus and the layout that editors have adopted across many similar articles. Finally, your NPOV claim is wrong. As was discussed in the previous RFC(s) the PA shooting is not widely associated with the Colt AR-15 or even AR-15s in general. Most articles don't mention AR-15 at all. Springee (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Springee, it's not supposition, it's fact. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support content, oppose "section header" - It gives undue prominence to cordon a couple sentences into its own section. This was a significant event in Australian history. The key words here "Australian history". It shouldn't have it's own section at all. I've been baffled as to why a one sentence paragraph is given its own personal header up to this point. I'd noted it ages ago, but couldn't be bothered questioning it. It would seem most logical to me for the Port Arthur massacre to be incorporated into the history section. There's nothing about this episode in Australian history that makes it more significant than the sum of it's history in the U.S. or the rest of the world. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support content, oppose "section header" The content seems overall fine. I would oppose it having it's own section though. I agree with Springee and Mr rnddude that it should just be in the history section, not it's own section. It was an important even, that is why it is in the article, but not so much to need it's own section. That gives it to much weight given the history of the rifle. I also strongly disagree with the argument "literally thousands of users come to this article looking for information on AR-15 use in mass shootings" that makes little to no sense. First if someone is looking for information on the AR-15 the search on wikipedia goes to AR-15 style rifle by default not here. Also when they go to that article it has a section on mass shootings there, because that is the proper place for it. Now if they are looking for information about this specific mass shooting, well that would take them to Port Arthur massacre (Australia) which would have all the info they need there. If they are coming here to find out about either of those they have done a wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I think Springee thinks it should be in its won section, and not part of the general history.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that's the case. Also as a note as the original proposer, my original intention was to include the Port Arthur information into the general history section; my compromise of expansion + split was precisely that. But if the consensus emerges that it should be fully integrated into history I will be supportive. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The history section is generally for the development an production history of the rifle. If the PA material is just a single sentence then I agree it's odd to have it in a stand alone section and 'history' is an ok place for it in that case. The proposed version is long enough that I'm ok with it being a stand alone. It isn't a reasonable part of the design/development/production history of the rifle. I want to respect the order of information on the article. The first sections are about the gun itself, not the impact the gun had on the market or others. If the material is stand alone it should remain where it is. Also, previously a question was asked why the 1994 AWB material was in the history section. It's a fair question and an argument certainly can be made that it didn't belong in a development history section. However, that ban did impact the production and design of the product and this is the backdrop for design/production changes. This it is reasonable to mention it there just as we might mention running changes to a car to meet new emissions requirements. As a compromise I think moving the AWB info in with the PA discussion was ok but I also think they can logically be discussed separately. So if we expand the PA material it shouldn't be added into the current history section (or as a subsection). Keep it in the current location. If it stays with current content then I'm ok moving it to history. Springee (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support content and location - The proposed text is more informative than the current version and is still a very short paragraph. I would also support including it as a subsection of History. –dlthewave ☎ 12:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Both For 3 or 4 (does the nominator support?) Against 2

Content For 3 Against 0

Location in history (rather than own section) For 2 Against 1

I am not sure this is a clear enough consensus for us to change it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I figured it was strong enough to at least supplant the late-August version as a working version pending fine-tuning to the section header issue. Nobody has brought up any substantive concerns with the content. But if people prefer to leave that version up for now until we get more comments in I'm fine to leave it alone for a few days. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes I would like it left a few days, this is not enough time for everyone to see this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think a bit of waiting is good. Also, I'm not for or against the text change. I'm OK in that I won't protest the change but I'm also fine with the current text. As for location again that is depending on context. I'm OK in the history section if we move the Aug 26th text into the history section as is. If we expand it then no, it should stay later in the article in either its own section or a section combined with other related material. At this point I would say we are getting close to a consensus on content but no consensus on location. Springee (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed text is crap. Not so much its spirit, but the writing. For starters, the first word should surely be "On", not "from". And maybe better expressed altogether. The dates with a dash could be confusing. The event wasn't "one of the deadliest mass shootings in Australian history". It was "THE deadliest". As an Australian, I would also like to see more than just the legal specifics. It wasn't just the law that changed. It was a whole culture. Whenever Australians are surveyed on it now, the new gun laws are shown to be extremely popular. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think HiLo48 makes some good editorial comments. I'm not sure the best way to start the sentence. I don't think "On 28-29 April..." is correct either but I could be wrong. I agree that "From..." sounds odd. Also agree that it should be "the deadliest..." I understand the wish to include more information but that is why there is a link to the primary article for additional information and details. Springee (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
We should not add too much information about this, this is not about the massacre.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"On" is definitely grammatically incorrect for addressing a sequence of days. If the massacre was about a specific day that'd be different. Most of the rest of the text was boosted directly from the lede of the massacre article including the dashed date and "one of the deadliest." However, how's this for a revision:
Between 28 and 29 April, 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured 23 in the Port Arthur massacre, during which he used a Colt AR-15 and a .308 FN rifle. It was the deadliest mass shooting in Australian history and resulted in the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996 which restricted the ownership of all self-loading rifles and shotguns.[1][2][3] In addition, the Australian government initiated a mandatory "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in through this program.[4] This incident had a lasting impact on Australian culture, substantially changing the public perception toward firearm ownership. [new ref supporting this statement]Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ "Firearms in Australia: a guide to electronic resources". aph.gov.au. Commonwealth of Australia. 9 August 2007. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
  2. ^ "How Australia Passed Gun Control: The Port Arthur Massacre and Beyond". Foreign Affairs. October 13, 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
  3. ^ Wahlquist, Calla (14 March 2016). "It took one massacre: how Australia embraced gun control after Port Arthur". The Guardian.
  4. ^ "Firearms Regulations FAQ". Attorney General's Department. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved March 2, 2016.
I would keep the last part off. The "lasting impact" pushes the paragraph into the politics and social views on gun ownership and away from the basic facts of the case. Even some of the details like the use of a valuation table may be too much detail for this article but not enough to make a fuss about one way or the other. Springee (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to it. I was trying to address HiLo48's concern. But on those rare occasions you and Slatersteven agree, chances are it's an idea worth considering, ;) I'm happy enough to leave it off it that's what consensus prefers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Entirely over detailed for this article. -72bikers (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
It's evident that the consensus is that either the statement should be expanded beyond a single sentence or it should be incorporated into the history header. Are you saying you would support inclusion of the extant copy into the history header rather than expanding? Because me trying to do that is what kicked off this whole discussion and back then you were adamantly opposed to that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
If it is one sentence I think it should not have its own section, it just looks off and over empathizes it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Simonm223 put the consensus text into the article. Since it was put in as a stand alone section I've moved it after the description of the rifle itself. This is consistent with many other articles on Wikipedia (what is it followed by its larger impact). Also I don't think we had a consensus to move the stand alone section to just after history. This also makes the layout consistent with the FN rifle article, FN_FAL, and L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle article. The FN page doesn't mention the Port Arthur shooting at all but this may be a case of common origin but one is the licensed version of the other. The L1A1(which is linked from the Port Arthur shooting page) only very briefly mentions the shooting at only at the end of the article in context of civilian ownership. This begs the question why the L1A1 rifle page is treated differently vs the AR-15 page. The relative use of each rifle is unclear. It would seem reasonable to synchronize the two articles. Springee (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Springee, brings up valid points. -72bikers (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly because we do not mention any laws affecting it in its history section?Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colt_AR-15/Archive_5&oldid=1227929205"