Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Users

One entry in the list of user was deleted, with the comment "undue; source mentions M&P rifles only in passing".[1] The entry was restored by another editor, who wrote "Undue wouldn't really apply here if this is a list of users. We did eliminate non-notable agencies." [2] Considering the fight we've been having over adding some users, a fight which mostly concerned "UNDUE", this is a surprising statement. Why do policies apply differently to law enforcement users and criminal users? That seems to be a direct violation of the principles of NPOV. Felsic2 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of the source needs to be proportional to the claim being made. Even though I wouldn't call the source in question strong, it should be strong enough to support the claim that the department in question does use the rifle. To what extent or how much, no, that they have some, yes. Springee (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, but we had good sources for the criminal use too. Yet you argued against including those. They should be treated equally. Felsic2 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If we can't include criminal users than we shouldn't include law enforcement users. That's simple. Felsic2 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the firearms project page, a section you have edited, you should understand why there is no merit to your concern. You are attempting to rehash a discussion that should have been put to bed with the recent RfC. Springee (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was closed prematurely based on the presumed identity of the original poster, so it doesn't really determine anything.

As for the firearms project page, it doesn't overrule WP:NPOV. There's no policy reason to include one type of user but not another, and there's a specific policy which prohibits that kind of one-sided approach. Felsic2 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please use just a singe indent to keep formatting under control

If you think the RfC was closed improperly you are welcome to dispute it. As it stands the RfC and the local page consensus before it make it clear that criminal use shouldn't be included in this article. It seems you again will need a second editor to back your POV tag claim. Springee (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem very touchy about indenting - you reverted me when I altered yours. Better if you just leave mine alone.

There hasn't been any RFC on the law enforcement users.

Remember that we use discussion and consensus to determine how to interpret polices. We don't vote here. Wikipedia is not a democracy.

As for the POV problem, it was raised on a noticeboard by @Masem:.[3] At that time, @Niteshift36: wrote "... I'd have no objection to removing the official users section." I'm not sure if he changed his mind or what. Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct indentation is part of talk page protocol. I'm cleaning up your indentations without changing the meaning of your edits including the implied nesting. You changed my nesting in a way that changed intent/ nesting. Do you understand the difference? Springee (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You change my posts but you revert me when I touch yours. That seems, well, I won't say, since WP:TPG says to discuss content not contributors. Anyway, if there's nothing else I'll delete the "Official users" once the protection is lifted. If we can't include all notable users equitably then the best solution is to include none, as Niteshift36 proposed. Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to the indentations because, now twice, those changes changed the nesting of the comments. I would suggest you get inputs from others before removing the section. I wouldn't support your change because it doesn't appear that you are making the change to improve the article. If other editors support the removal with justification then I won't object. Springee (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone object? If so, why? Felsic2 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• How about if you don't take what I said out of context? I've actually removed official users from other articles, especially if the agency was non-notable. I've discussed with other editors how many of these should be removed. And I did say I wouldn't object in the context the question was being asked before. However, the entries were removed with the rationale that the sources only list mention them. For appearing on a list, there wouldn't need to be more than verification. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So why are we including law enforcement users but excluding criminal users, if being mentioned is the only requirement? Felsic2 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Official adaptation by a notable agency is a bit different. It usually involved a selection process, testing etc, rather than simply being the random choice of a criminal. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

How do we know what the selection process was if the source is just a mention?

How do we know that criminals don't also go through a selection process? Do you have a source for this alleged randomness? Felsic2 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously, you never read the sources you are trying to remove. "Las Vegas PD requested test and evaluation samples from numerous manufacturers...". Source 2: "The M&P15 MOE Mid rifles, which were purchased through seizure funds, were previously tested and evaluated against firearms from various competitors. Following a detailed examination period, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 MOE Mid semi-automatic rifles were selected based on their performance during testing and their professional-grade features". If you have evidence that the criminals used a selection process, I'll be happy to review it and revise my opinion if needed.

I don't see a thing about why the W. VA Troopers bought the weapon.[4] Do you see it?

This article is unusual, compared to other firearm articles, in that some of the references to LEO users do include some content on the choice of weapon. We also have sources that talk about how the Aurora shooter purchased his weapons. Let's treat them neutrally. Felsic2 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, do you have any source showing that the criminals did any sort of formal testing process? Or public bid process? Please show those sources. No, the article doesn't say WHY WV selected it....the others show a testing process was involved, contrary to your claims. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So then why did you restore the WV material if it doesn't say why they chose the weapon? Felsic2 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(BTW, I never said that the criminal users "tested" the weapons before buying.) Felsic2 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Because my restoration wasn't based solely on having a source say they tested it. How about if you stop grasping at that single straw and share the sources that show the testing process by criminals? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, then what was the main reason you restored this content that you say is only supported by a passing mention? Felsic2 (talk)

• You apparently don't understand here. Let me try again. Passing mentions are sufficient to include something on a list. As long as the criteria of the list is met (ie that the agency issues them), inclusion shouldn't be an issue. The only discussion at this point should be whether or not the list should exist in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, then why should the article have a list of LEO users while excluding a list of criminal users? Felsic2 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• There isn't a list of LEO users. There's a list of law enforcement AGENCIES that issue it. Not some random cop, not some random criminal, government agencies that took tax money and purchased them, usually after a testing process and bid process. But these were random criminals who picked them. You've shown no selection process or any reason beyond happenstance. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agencies and departments don't use guns or drive cars, officers do.

The criminals in question here aren't random. They are notable, even highly notable mass murderers.

If you are saying that the criteria for inclusion in a gin article is a source describing a selection process, then almost all entries for users in almost all gun articles should be removed. Is that what you're suggesting, or does this proposed standard apply only to this one article?

• Agencies and departments test and evaluate guns and cars, then put them out for bid, then purchase them for the officers to use. The criminal may or may not be random, but their weapon selection appears to be and, despite several requests, you haven't even attempted to show otherwise. And I'm discussing THIS article. I'm not addressing what may or may not belong in other articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that felsic has justified keeping the tag. Unless another registered editor (not the IP troll) supports it I propose removal in 48 hours. Springee (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's resolve the POV issues first. Felsic2 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the only legitimate editor who claims there is an issue. Springee (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A) it's not your place to decide which editors are "legitimate". B) I'm not the only, or even the first, editor to raise this issue. Again, see the postings by Masem.[[5] C) How many "remove the POV tag" threads do you need? Please don't hijack this one. Felsic2 (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, an admin has blocked the IP for block evasion [[6]]. Now we can say the IP editor isn't legitimate. Of course a new IP will be back tomorrow or the next day. Springee (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

When does the user's block expire? And has Masem been blocked too? Felsic2 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2:, you are the only editor who claims there is a NPOV issue with the article, while several editors have said remove the tag. If you think the user section has a POV issue then add a local tag. Even then your claim is questionable given that no other editors agree with you. Springee (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Added tag to section. I don't agree with and would still support it's removal but since you are only claiming the user section has a POV issue then a section level tag is all that is needed. Springee (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• As I have said before in another section. Regarding crimes that have reported the M&P15, can they prove without a doubt that it was not a modified M&P? The crimes with AR-15 are already on that page. There is no need for it to be here. This page is pretty neutral. It's mainly about the design and history. No disrespect Felsic2, but you seem to be the only user to state the NPOV issue. Reb1981 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• If this discussion is about Law enforcement users being listed and other users, criminal, sporting, etc being excluded, then I think the other users have to be included per WP:NOPV, WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL if there are reliable sources.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Official adaptation by a notable agency is a bit different. It usually involved a selection process, testing etc, rather than simply being the random choice of a criminal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Other notable historical and present uses like criminal, sporting and terrorist uses are included per WP policies. You may wish to add the selection process to the article for law enforcement users, as educational, but having a selection process is not a relevant criteria to exclude or include the historical and present users and uses in the article. FYI, I have not read any evidence that criminal, sporting and terrorist users randomly select guns. I have read the users select guns for their effectiveness, like AK-47 and AR-15 variants.CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• The consensus here has been that criminal uses haven't met the threshold for inclusion. What reliable source have you read that showed criminals picked this firearm based on any criteria or testing process? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Niteshift36, My understanding is Wikipedia consensus is based on WP policies, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity...nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." From what I read in this talk page the "local consensus" is not based on WP policies, but based on personal preferences. Are there WP policies being stated, that I missed? What "threshold" are you referring to?

The sources I read where users (criminal, terrorists) select guns for effectiveness, are in general:1 2 3. I do not know any sources that specify criminals, terrorists, picking a gun on a documented testing process, or what specifically was in their mind, there may be. I think that is not a WP requirement, but could be educational to add to an article, as you referred to, for the example of law enforcement users. I think per WP policies, notable historical documented law enforcement, criminal,terrorist, sporting uses et al, per "consensus" are included in an article per WP:NOPV, WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL.Thanks, CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• You may read local consensus that way, but the majority of editors haven't. Additionally, the discussion has taken place on a broader scale at the Firearms project. The first and third sources don't really state that the Smith & Wesson M&P15 was selected for any specific reason or that there was any sort of intentionality behind the choice. In fact, the third one mentions 2 others that use the same cartridge, but are not AR15's. Nothing to indicate that this was anything more than "it was the one available" (ie random). You'll need to be more specific about the second source, as you gave me nothing but a link to a book. And even if I hadn't seen those policies/guidelines in the past 9+ years, you've already linked to them once here. No need to do it every time you mention them. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Niteshift, I was writing about general principles. I participated in some discussions in the Firearms project too. I am not proposing specific text for the S&W MP15 article, nor was I providing specific sources to support the text. I was writing about the general discussion and a response to your general question. In general, I think law enforcement/criminal/terrorist/sporting, et al, users and uses for guns like the S&W MP15 belong, in their respective articles, per WP policies. The same for other objects and their articles. If someone proposes specific text and sources, then the specifics can be discussed. Thanks, CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• As this is the talk page for the S&W MP15, discussion here should be about the S&W MP15 and edits related to this article. If you want to have broader discussions, those belong elsewhere. My question was not general at all. I asked "What reliable source have you read that showed criminals picked this firearm based on any criteria or testing process?" I'm not asking about other firearms at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• 1. I do not know of such a source. 2. I do not consider such a source, as necessary, to include a criminal use of the S&W MP15 in this article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• You may not consider it necessary, but there has been consensus against including it. The position you support claims that if we include official users, we include criminal users. I've demonstrated the difference between the two. You haven't. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)