This is an archive of past discussions about Bushmaster M4-type Carbine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Deletion?
This is another commercial AR-15 clone, why does it deserve it's own entry? Candidate for deletion, don't feel that way, prove me wrong. Koalorka (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keepor perhaps merge with either the Bushmaster or AR15 articles. Deleting the hard work of others never sits right with me (unless its a totally useless article, of course, and this one is not).--Mike Searson (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Damn I put so much hard work into this article... I thought it was a notable clone because it is the best selling AR-15 around, and is used by a lot of organizations. Also there are quite a lot of clone articles, such as the many M1911 articles. Hayden120 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It's notable because it's the most well-known AR-15. Just because it's a clone doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve to have mention in WP. Celarnor (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, apart from being attached to it for personal contributions made I haven't heard of any valid reason for keeping it. Surfing through firearms manufacturer websites and creating articles based on ads and brochures is not how we maintain an encyclopedia. Some of you forget that. If not deleted this article should be merged into the Bushmaster Firearms International page. There are a gazillion companies that make the AR-15 and its many variants. I'll put up the merge tags. Koalorka (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Notable on its own. Different than the actual AR-15, so should not be merged twith the AR15 article. A short paragraph mention in the Bushmaster Firearms International article with the main article tag for the paragraph pointing back here is probably the best way to work this. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The Bushmaster AR-15 is certainly notable, and so should have its own article. I believe this is true of many other guns as well. We want to avoid having frivolous articles, and guns that are minor variations should just get sections of a main article, but neither of these apply to the Bushmaster. — Mudwater00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what would be your collective opinion on say the Bushmaster Camo Varminter:
Going with the logic presented, or lack thereof it would seem these guns also deserve their own entries. What about the rest of the commercial AR-15 makers? They also have models that are "different" from the AR-15. Rock River Arms, Olympic Arms, Anvil Arms, Sabre Defence, Lewis Machine & Tool, Stag Arms, ArmaLite, Bravo Company, DPMS. They all have a range of AR-15 variants in different configurations. Are we now going to be describing every one of those with a separate page. Of course not! WP:Firearms tells us otherwise. What specific information does this article give (other than marketing hype) that is not already mentioned with the AR-15?
And frankly I don't see any "hard work" put into this either. This article is un-encyclopedic and reduces our projects credibility and serious contributions other have made. I will bring this up on the WP talk page. Those of you in favour of keeping this are seriously out to lunch IMO. Koalorka (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the best, or if not, the best selling AR-15 currently on the market. Others such as the Camo Varminter do not sell anywhere near the same numbers as this. And why do you say this, "This article is un-encyclopedic and reduces our projects credibility and serious contributions other have made."? What is there in the article that reduces our project's credibility or affects serious contributions others have made? Some of the hard work that done was to add citations to many of the facts, something you don't seem to often do in articles you have heavily edited. The article satisfies the criteria for B-Class of both project tags, so what is there 'un-encyclopedic' about the page? Hayden120 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I would go further and say that many guns that are less well known would still be legitimate subjects for Wikipedia articles, as long as they are not minor variants of other guns. They would have to meet the criteria for notability, but would do so if they've been written up in a couple of gun magazines -- see Wikipedia:Notability. I really think that such articles do not reduce the credibility of WikiProject Firearms and do not detract from other firearms articles. They also are appropriate to the very comprehensive nature of Wikipedia itself. Furthermore, new articles would not need to be anywhere near as good as this one is. It's well within the philosophy of Wikipedia for articles to be created as stub or start class and then gradually improved over time. — Mudwater12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
Was shocked to find no mention of the use in the Sandy Hook shooting. I think enough time has passed that it is clear this weapon has received a great deal of attention due to its use in the incident. Asking that an unbiased senior Wikipedian review this article and make the required additions. I find the aggressive unwillingness to include this information very disturbing and believe that doing so causes significant damage to Wikipedia's reputation for veracity, accuracy, and unbiased information. Deutschmark82 (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)deutschmark82
The apparent experts contributing to this discussion indicate at the very (current) bottom of this talk page that this in fact was not the weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre. This article describes a carbine variations of the weapon, whereas someone has uncovered a document that indicates that the weapon used to kill all the children and teacher victims at Sandy Hook was a rifle version of the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S. If you look below you will see that there was a discussion about moving this page to a subsection of a new article, and then including both the rifle and carbine variants in that article, but that effort failed. I personally was absolutely baffled about the twisty maze of product minutia regarding the Bushmaster weapons used the Sandy Hook and Beltway Sniper shootings, and basically had no choice but to look somewhere other than Wikipedia to figure out what on earth is going on with these Bushmaster products. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop DELETING relevant information from this article. Use of this weapon in two of the most notorious mass murders of the 21st century certainly meets WP:GUNS#Criminal use criteria: multiple forms of legislation are being considered and debated nationally as a result of this use, and there can be no doubt that the weapon's "notoriety greatly increased." Due weight is thus accorded. Wikipedia community and readers are harmed by having this information off the page during protection. Someone with such ability should re-protect page after reinserting this information. 91.66.192.70 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Your edits violate the guidelines laid out at WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:GUNS, and they will continue to be reverted for that reason. This issue is definitely not worth noting in the article, much less in the lede of the article. It does not meet the notability criteria that has been pointed out to you. The fact that gun control legislation is "being considered" at the moment is irrelevant and the same could be said following any shooting; your statement that "the weapon's notoriety greatly increased" is also purely original research at this point and it's far too early to make such a claim. Enough with the coatracking; this is an encyclopedic article. ROG5728 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Lobot, I understand your thinking in so far that WP:GUNS#Criminal use asks for a "legislation being passed" for a gun to be mentioned in such cases. And you probably feel that this means US legislation. Alas, WP-en is read, and edited, in several dozen countries, and I'd like to know only one of them that does not prohibit the trade, ownership and use of a military assault rifle except for military personel (on duty). The US are really very special in this regard. There may be a majority of US citizens using WP-en, but I don't read the idea of WP as having to hide information and protect one group from the view of the rest of the world. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:GUNS is a WikiProject. Quoting directly from the WikiProject page: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles (emphasis added). So while WP:GUNS may provide helpful suggestions for editing this article, it is by no means absolute nor is it WikiPedia policy.72.94.162.159 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, WP:GUNS##Criminal use suggests to me that the recent shooting should be included in the article. It explicitly says that a criminal incident is notable enough to be included "if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine)". I think this incident qualifies. Just take a look at the currently exploding page views of this page. So regardless of whether or not there's legislation, the Columbine president suggests it should be included. That is, of course, assuming this was the gun that was used. Mlm42 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
All the same it would be wise to play the waiting game and see how this shapes up. Its true the gun was used, but unless the legislation specifically mentions the guns in question its doubtful that it would meet a basic notability requirement. A day or two of on the fence back and forth would do both sides well to see how the debate will shape up since at the moment there is no garuntee that the shooting will result in something like the brady bill being passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.217.194 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly; when (if) there is "huge impact" on the gun-control debate and legislation stems from this and mentions this particular rifle (this rifle is, by definition, not an 'assault weapon under the 1994 AWB, the renewal of which being the only actual change in law being discussed) then we can discuss inclusion. Until then, mention of the shooting is contraindicated by both WP:GUNS#Criminal use and WP:CRYSTAL. This happens on every single article about firearms used in a crime that makes the news in the US, the overwhelming majority of these mentions do not stick and WP:GUNS#Criminal use has been a stable guideline for a long time. Give it some time; once the new Congressional session starts, we'll see if legislation is promulgated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me just c&p the guideline as it exists now: "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). As per WP:UNDUE, editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"." The mass murder at Sandy Hook appears to have met or exceeded the requirement of infamy. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The incident "appears" to have met the requirement of infamy? That isn't good enough. Every time there is any kind of mass shooting, the weapon that was used receives a blurb of media attention for a short time. Thing is, the Intratec is still associated with the Columbine shooting, but it remains to be seen if there will be any real connection between the Bushmaster/AR-15 and this incident when the dust has settled. I think it's safe to say there won't be; but it's far too early to say. ROG5728 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, it's speculation to say anything one way or the other at this point. There may be quite a lot of coverage at the moment but that is always the case following a mass shooting. Difference is, the Intratec is still associated with the Columbine shooting, but it remains to be seen if there will be any real connection between the Bushmaster/AR-15 and this incident when the dust has settled. ROG5728 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
So as a project like WP:GUNS is _not_ any kind of "rule-making organisation" (see above), but just a group of editors interested in the subject, they are free to document how they want to handle the things, but that has no power whatsoever on the rest of the editors. Alas, the connection to the shooting can and must be mentioned in the Bushmaster article. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this common sense conclusion. So, how can we get the information included? Being new to Wikipedia, I do not know the details of how to do so, but I formally appeal now for a review of this matter by impartial authorities. Can a vote of moderators or something be initiated, and if so how? Time is marching on, with this article "protected" while lacking crucial encyclopedic information while large numbers of internet users are visiting this site to obtain comprehensive and uncensored information on a topic of historic and public policy and cultural significance. We can no longer wait. 91.66.192.70 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
WP is not a news service, so time should not be the big problem. But I agree that the protection in the current state is wrong. About the review by some kind of impartial authority - consider that WP is not a democracy, more like China in a part of its history when the Mandarins were given absolute power by the emperor. So if you seek wise decisions by higher power I advise you find a WP-admin who understands your point. Sorry... --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, the WP:GUNS guidelines were formed by project consensus. The addition you're begging for certainly does not have consensus of any sort. Let me also point out that it would violate the guidelines at WP:OR and WP:NPOV, because it constitutes biased speculation on the long term notability/relevance of this connection. If you want to find information on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, go to that article. This is an article on the Bushmaster rifle and its technical characteristics. Let's keep that in mind. This is Wikipedia, not CNN. ROG5728 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
But it's only project consensus. See, for example, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In fact, I think not including the incident is violating WP:NPOV, which overrules anything WP:GUNS says. A neutral article about this type of gun should mention this highly notable shooting. I understand there are concerns that it's too early to tell.. but what's the downside of adding it? Almost everybody (possibly 100%) who is coming to this article right now is coming because of the discussions surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting. WP:GUNS does not own this article, and therefore cannot ignore WP:NPOV.
WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There have been several reliable sources now exclusively talking about the gun in relation to the incident. It's time to add it. Mlm42 (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should by no means only be about the "technical characteristics" of a topic, but should also include important historical, cultural, political and other aspects. Let's get some helpful input to resolve this.91.66.192.70 (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The continuing refusal of some editors to allow properly referenced information that is of interest to readers of the page to be added is now well into the absurd and appears to be little more than censorship at this point. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is clearly satisfied in this case (via "notoriety greatly increased"), which as has been pointed out has already stimulated a huge increase in the number of views of this page, and of sales of the gun in question. ROG5728, I can see from your User-Page that you are a keen gun enthusiast, and I believe that your enthusiasm has clouded your judgement on this issue. Please allow those unconnected with either the pro- or anti-gun lobbies to make a properly NPOV inclusion of reference to the Sandy Hook incident. An NPOV inclusion is one which neither ignores that the gun was used, nor attempts to implicate that the gun or its availability was the cause of the incident of killings involved. Thank you. Fig (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
So then we can as well wait for consensus in the US congress, I'd rather see a man on mars before that. What we can seek is a compromise. How about "media attention" as a separate chapter? That implies a certain distance from that media's working style. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
First of all, recent sales of the gun don't necessarily have anything to do with notoriety; AR-15 owners are buying more AR-15s. Looking at the number of page views to determine whether "notoriety greatly increased" is also WP:OR. Please provide a source that says something of the sort (I don't doubt such a source exists). The problem is not the wording of your addition, the problem is that talking about criminal use in an article that says nothing about lawful use is obviously unbalanced. For example, you'll notice the article doesn't point out that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America and it's almost never used in homicides. The Bushmaster rifle is used for lawful purposes by millions of Americans, but here we are talking about including criminal use in one incident. This kind of nonsense is exactly why the WP:GUNS guidelines were created. Personally, I think it would be much better to avoid the inevitable gun control debate altogether in this article and save it for something like the Assault Weapons Ban article. But if we're going to talk about a criminal use in the article, it's only fair to talk about lawful use as well. After all, that's primarily what the rifle is used for, as I've already pointed out. Anyway, the problem is not just that the information you're wanting to include advances an agenda; the problem is that it really does nothing aside from advancing an agenda. Unless this incident has some kind of long term impact on the AR-15, it's basically trivia. People associate the Intratec with the Columbine shooting, as WP:GUNS points out, but it remains to be seen if there will be that kind of strong link between Connecticut and the AR-15. ROG5728 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The one thing noticeably absent from the above conversation so far has been notability. Like it or not, both the pro- and anti-inclusion camps need to recognize that right at this moment our hands are tied not be WP:GUNS but by notability requirements as outlined on Wikipedia. Our notability requirements, in particular for news and crime, do not as of yet permit us to add information on this event as it relates to the shooting here in the article. The biggest single reason boils down to "one event": the guns notability at the moment is inherently limited to one event, and without that event there would be no reason to mention the weapon at all, it would merely be another assault weapon sold in the US. I know that both side do not want to hear this, but right now your best course of action is to adopt a wait-and-see posture. To rush to add this information to the article is irresponsible, and besides the information you are so desperate to add to the article here is already present on the shooting page. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The notability policy is not restricting us from doing anything. That policy is about when it's appropriate to create an article on it's own.. and the shooting incident is obviously notable enough for that (hence Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting). WP:N says nothing about what is notable enough for inclusion in articles that already exist; that's what the policy WP:NPOV is about, which I've quoted above (and I've argued NPOV supports the inclusion of the shooting in this article, due to the significant coverage in the media). Mlm42 (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, ROG5728, I'd be careful of throwing around accusations of advancing an agenda, because preventing relevant information from entering an article could also be seen as advancing an agenda. That's why we have WP:NPOV.. it explains how to be neutral. At this stage, a neutral sentence or two, stating that this was the gun involved in the Sandy Hook shootings, is a neutral statement, given due weight, and thus should be included. Mlm42 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Mlm42 is absolutely correct - quite apart from the silliness of suggesting the use of this gun at Sandy Hook is not notable, notability refers to articles themselves, not individual sentences in those articles. The fact that something has only happened once doesnt make it not-notable - the notability of something is determined by its impact. In any case, this is not the first time this gun has been used in a massacre - an earlier variant, a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S was used in the Beltway sniper attacks, as you would know if L0b0t hadnt deleted the references earlier, so now that non-sequitur has been put to rest we can move on. I'm glad that an editor has put up a Neutrality dispute notice on this article, because there is obviously a real problem here. Fig (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Mlm42, it's not relevant information, nor would it be neutral for us to add text about one isolated incident of criminal use while neglecting to say anything about how the rifle is primarily used by millions of Americans for lawful purposes. The article in its current state does not advance any agenda one way or another; it's perfectly neutral. It does not need to be expanded unless something major actually comes of this incident (like federal gun control legislation being passed). But it remains to be seen if that will happen. ROG5728 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, so we've made progress. We will put in a reference to both the use at Sandy Hook and the fact that "the rifle is primarily used by many (unlikely to be millions, as the M4 is just a small portion of the estimated 3,000,000 assault rifles in the US) Americans for lawful purposes." Thank you for your compromise ROG5728 - I am happy with that. The reader is properly informed of two useful bits of information that aren't currently in the article, which means that everyone is enlightened and Wikipedia does its job. Does someone want to inser the appropriate text? Fig (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Straw poll the inclusion first, just to be safe. Adding it without some sort of measuring device is liable to result in the info being yanked again. That's what I would do, anyway. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I suggest something along the lines of "There are an estimated x00,000 <with reference> Bushmaster M4 in circulation in the USA used by civilians for lawful purposes. However, this gun was also used in the Sandy Hook school massacre. <with references>"Fig (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a need to connect the two pieces of info like that. The overview is big enough to state them separately. ROG5728 (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"Lawful purposes" makes no sense to mention because anything not explicitely forbidden is allowed. The reason to mention the Sandy Hook shooting in this article is simply because a huge number of other media draw this connection and the gun has become a markstone for a debate that goes well beyond the event (the valuation of which is not very much debated). --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In the interests of coming to an agreement (and in line with the Bold, Revert, Discuss editing cycle), I've added what I think is a reasonable sentence to the article, with reasonable references.. lots of room for improvement. I didn't know what to say about how they are primarily used by civilians; as Fig suggests, quantifying their popularity would be a good way to say this, but I don't know the sources for such information. Mlm42 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this would make sense anyway, not so much in order to balance the current discussion but as part of the encyclopedic information about this subject. Sources anybody? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It is too early to forecast what effect, if any, this single point event will have on changing laws. Have removed the statement, as it is too early to put this in the article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, IMHO this citation and the added data about civilian use is a valuable addition to the article, and also puts the Sandy Hook event in a perspective. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have made another attempt to put in a balanced set of comments, including ROG5728's link on use, and another link I found on the numbers of general AR-15s in civilian hands in the USA. I really hope this finds general agreement, so we can remove the NPOV dispute tag from this page and all get on with something else more fun (like getting drunk as we should be on the Friday before Christmas...) Fig (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Not balanced, and not relevant. The reason is that AR-15 rifles are entirely a much bigger class than Bushmaster xm15-e2s rifles. The new addition is simply trivia. Likewise for the mention of the use of the Bushmaster M4 by Adam Lanza. I could make much the same case for including a newer section in the article that Ford's are the most common type of crossover vehicle sold in America, followed by a statement that Adam Lanza drove a Ford Explorer to the location of the school shooting (here is even a cite: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Connecticut+massacre+revives+memories+1998+Oregon+shooting/7705376/story.html ). But, we wouldn't think of including any mention of those bad Ford Explorers in the article. But, had Adam not stolen his mom's Ford Explorer, there would have been no mass murder, either. Hence, both should be mentioned, by your logic. Yet, neither should be included in the article. The new AR-15 statement and criminal use statement paragraph do not belong in the article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is frankly ridiculous. The fact that Ford's are the most common type of crossover vehicle sold in America is of course notable and worth putting in such an article. The car that Lanza drove to the scene is incidental. Unless of course he had killed 27 people by running them over with it. Thanks to ROG5728 for his helpful edits and agreeing to the consensus. Evidently we cant please everyone Miguel, but I think you'll have to accept that there is now consensus here. Fig (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Miguel, regarding your comparison to cars, consider the article Ford Bronco, which mentions in the lead O.J. Simpson's car chase. The reason we are talking about adding the shooting incident to the article about the gun (rather than the article about the Ford Explorer) is due to the amount of media coverage that has focused specifically on the gun; Wikipedia is supposed reflect what reliable sources say, and that's what we're trying to do here. Mlm42 (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It makes no sense to relate useless information about school shootings on what is supposed to be a factual and technical page about a very useful product. It seems more like some people are just trying to get their politics out there to sway the public. Solri89 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should the article make appropriate mention of notable incidents of usage of the weapon?
While reading the information on this page I noticed some of it was incorrect and would like it to be fixed to remain up to date and factual. If you read under the subtopic Civilian User's this article mentions a 2012 school shooting. This information was actually botched as it was later reported that the gun had been found in the trunk of the car he was driving and was not actually ever used during this event.
This weapon was used to kill all the child victims at Sandy Hook per the medical examiner. Please see the discussion above, plus the extensive references on the page. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:GUNS#Criminal use is a WikiProject. Quoting directly from the WikiProject page: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles (emphasis added). Although WP:GUNS may provide helpful suggestions for editing this article, it is by no means absolute nor is it WikiPedia policy. The notorious use of the Bushmaster product for this mass murder overrides such WikiProjects. --Zeamays (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
use in Beltway Sniper attacks
Having agreed to the following language, "However, in December 2012, a .223 Bushmaster rifle was used by Adam Lanza to kill 27 in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting", I think there should be an additional mention of this weapon's use in the Beltway Sniper Attacks. Such language is already in the Bushmaster Firearms International page, in the following form: "In 2004, Bushmaster Firearms agreed to contribute $500,000 to a $2.5 million settlement along with co-defendant Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, paid to some victims and families of victims of the 2002 Beltway snipers. A Bushmaster-manufactured .223 caliber rifle was used in the attacks. The company cited mounting legal fees as the reason for settling." It cites http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/9/20040909-095944-5026r/?page=1— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.56.68 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't operate by precedent. The fact that some other article has something in it doesn't mean this one should too. The information you quoted belongs on the Bushmaster manufacturer article. This is what always happens when we open the door to these kinds of additions... the article invariably gets crammed with more and more criminal use comments that serve no real purpose. ROG5728 (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, ROG, what's your evidence for your statement, "the article invariably..." or is that just your opinion? Give us some published statistics if you want to make a claim like that. --Zeamays (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This article already contains enough pointless criminal use references. There's not a chance we're going to going to go a step further with this and add even more trivia. If you keep pushing the issue, we can just go ahead and remove the other criminal use comments completely and restore the article to its previous state. You're already trying to use the previous addition as an excuse to add more unnecessary content, and it's not going to happen. ROG5728 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Threatening to go against consensus doesn't exactly advance your argument. Remember, you don't own the article; neither does WP:GUNS. After a quick internet search, it seems to me that quite a lot of attention has been given to the fact that the specific type of rifle was used in the Beltway attacks.. so if this isn't going to be included, a convincing argument needs to be made. If you think the criminal incidents are being given undue weight, then counter with non-criminal content about the gun. Mlm42 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there are lots of editors here that are against including any of the criminal use material, and they've continued to remove it. I personally agreed to leave the matter alone earlier, but if you keep pushing the issue, we can just go ahead and remove the other criminal use comments completely and restore the article to its previous state. Contrary to what you might like to believe, consensus can change and it's obvious you do not have consensus to clutter the article with more and more pointless trivia comments. ROG5728 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with ROG5728 here: consensus was agreed here after lengthy debate a couple of weeks ago. As far as I'm concerned that consensus still stands and the text concerned shouldnt be modified without further consensus here (which it's fairly clear is unlikely to be forthcoming). Edits to the agreed text in either direction should be reverted until a new consensus is reached. Consensus is important, which sadly a lot of editors seem be forgetting right now. Fig (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Fig, what was missing from the discussion was whether the gun used was actually an M4 type carbine.. the sentence I added to the article reflected what was said in the sources; but it doesn't appear to belong in this article. This seems to have been caused by a misunderstanding (or some original research) that happened on the Sandy Hook shooting page, which has now been fixed; together with my misunderstanding about gun names. Mlm42 (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no mention of the Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine in the cites mentioned. A .223 Bushmaster rifle is what is mentioned. Also, there is no need for unrelated AR-15 data being here, where it is trivia at best. Have removed the Original Research and WP:SYNTH that a .223 Bushmaster rifle is a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine. Find a reference that states it was a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine, and that is a different cite and a different case. But, the present cites don't support the inclusion of what is, at best, unrelated trivia, in this particular article. Have removed this data, which doesn't belong here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There is also a mention that the rifle used by Adam Lanza was only similar to a Bushmaster M4 here. It is clearly OR to state he used a M4 Type Carbine with no cites backing up this claim. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As best I can tell, Adam Lanza used an XM15-E2S rifle, similar to the photograph here. Bushmaster XM15 E2S A2 20in A mention in the Bushmaster Firearms International article is where this mention should go, if anywhere. But, it is OR and WP:SYNTH to put this information on an entirely different rifle. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That link doesnt say anything - it's just a picture associated with some text... unlike the link I've posted below that clearly identifies the M4 carbine. Fig (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Escopeta's information is referenced and appears correct. I will withdraw my objection unless documentation is produced to show this is the correct murder weapon in these crimes. I go by the facts, not personal opinion. --Zeamays (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, we all agree a Bushmaster XM15 rifle was used in the Sandy Hook shootings. It says in this article that XM15 is an M4 type carbine. Miguel is claiming that it's original research to conclude an M4 type carbine was used? I'm no gun expert, so I would appreciate clarification. Mlm42 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I see; only some XM15-E2S's are M4 type carbines.. I misunderstood. Yes, this content is more appropriate for the Bushmaster article. Though I'd have to wonder why there isn't an article on the larger class of Bushmaster XM-15 rifles? Mlm42 (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a reference that clearly identifies the weapon used at Sandy as an M4 Carbine: [2] (We know from later info that the weapon used was indeed the one that Nancy Lanza owned). Fig (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
We also "know" that Ryan Lanza was the shooter, that the mother was a teacher at Sandy Hook, that the shooter killed his father, and that a second shooter was involved, too, at least by the same early reports, too. No. The father was not killed. Adam, not Ryan, was the shooter. The mother was not a teacher at Sandy Hook, and no second shooter was involved. None of these other early reports turned out to be true, either. Corrections have appeared in the media, who got so much wrong early on. The reference to an M4 Bushmaster from December 15th that you are cherry picking has clearly been corrected in the media. Yes, all Bushmaster M4 Carbines are XM15 models of Bushmasters. But, the rifle used at Sandy Hook was an XM15-E2S that specifically was not a Bushmaster M4 Carbine. We should not push false information on Wikipedia. Agreed? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Where has it been "corrected" in the media? You cant seriously mean that link of yours to a page that doesnt mention it but happens to have a picture of an XM15-E2S on it? I presume you have some other list of references you havent mentioned for some reason. Please can we see them?
Just a couple of days ago you said "Find a reference that states it was a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine" which I have done, and now suddenly you have decided it isnt enough. Oh, how am I not surprised... I am re-inserting the NPOV notice that was only removed when the consensus text was inserted. Fig (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This reference also says it was a Bushmaster XM15 rifle. It contains more detail on the other weapons he used too. There are lots of other references online that say the same thing. ROG5728 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do you assume the redirect is correct? A Wikipedia editor created that. Redirects often point to similar articles simply because a purpose built article doesn't exist for the actual subject (which is, in this case, the XM15). ROG5728 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You guys crack me up, seriously. As Miguel says: "all Bushmaster M4 Carbines are XM15 models of Bushmasters". He produces a link to a page where there is a picture of the E2S flavour with no specific reference in the text. You produce a link simply saying that the gun was in the XM15 family, which no one doubts, but even though the XM15 family page redirects here you dont think the info you say relates to the XM15 should be here. I on the other hand produce a reference to a specific quote saying the weapon used was M4 Carbine flavour, but he says it's wrong and you say it shouldnt go here. Comical. Fig (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I oppose any mention of any criminal acts in this article. To my mind it is trivia. The criminals could have used any assault weapon. If they had a particular brand of gum in their pocket, would we mention it on the article about that gum? If the gun is made illegal as a direct result, then it can be mentioned, but that hasn't happen yet. If the weapon gained a reputation for criminal use in the long term that could be mentioned. (See Thompson submachine gun as an example, not a precedent.) But it hasn't gained such a reputation. Recent sales increase is not notable, because it is not unusual. Sales of Skittles went up after the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. People see stuff on TV, they go buy it, so what. Both these crimes are mentioned in the manufacturer's article, because there was a notable response from the manufacturer. That does not warrant mention in this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, it does, and not because of what we WP editors believe, but because a huge number of reputable sources draws the connection and mentions the specific brand and type of weapon; this is new in this degree. What the reason for this attention of media is may be interesting to research, but this is not WPs job as well. We represent here what other sources write and we do not do wp:original research. So I insert the passage again that was well discussed before, and removed without bringing new arguments here. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine → Bushmaster XM-15 – I think we should move the content of this article to Bushmaster XM-15; and modify the content so the new article has a section titled M4 type carbine. This would clarify several issues, since all M4 type carbines are XM-15's, but not vice versa; and then we could include the information about the two shootings (as is desired, based on the above discussions). The Bushmaster XM-15 article currently redirects here; but there are many other types of XM-15's which are not M4 type carbines. So there are several reasons for such a move (including the fact that it's more logical to have an article about the somewhat larger class). Mlm42 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Support - This would clear up a lot of the issues. It doesnt really make sense that there is an article for the variety but not the wider family it belongs to. There isnt enough content currently to justify an article for both pages. If Bushmaster XM-15 grows so big that it needs child pages then Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine can be one of them. Fig (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Support - Yes, a move will allow for an article that clarifies the minutia of models/names/designs. If a move isn't made then the current article almost needs a Venn diagram that encompasses carbine, M4 carbine, AR-15, M4A2, M4A3, etc etc. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Do not support - The M4 carbine is not a generic AR-15, and deserves its own article. Why not recreate the Bushmaster xm-15 article, which we once had for several years? Yaf (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have one larger article than two smaller ones. If the article becomes large enough to warrant a split, then that's easy to do.. but my guess is that won't happen in the near future (unless somebody is volunteering?). Mlm42 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems there's a flood of people wanting to delete new stuff from this article, but hardly anyone in the room when somebody wants help to improve it. Ho-hum... Fig (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - The M4 is completely different from the XM-15. Create another article, by all means, but do not delete this one or merge this one into it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ18:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - It doesn't look like there'll be consensus on this. So I suggest the Plan B option: resurrect the old XM15 family stub (currently a re-direct) flesh it out slightly with E2S and M4 carbine subsections (the latter of which links here); link from Sandy Hook incident to that resurrected article and add the previously agreed but since deleted form of words on the incident to that. Fig (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be a content fork if it is the same weapon or a WP:COATRACK if your looking to create an article where you can hang a "This is the gun that killed children" section on. The Sandy Hook incident is mentioned on the Bushmaster Firearms International article, because it has influenced a change to that company. It belongs there and nowhere else. To my mind the only information we have about the "long rifle" is it was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon" (see this CNN article). The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article saying it was an XM-15 is likely supposition by some journalist as the CNN article says the specifics about the weapon have not been released. See Bushmaster's product page for XM-15s, MOE and Carbon 15. You can see the all look based on the AR-15 including the M4s and thats just what they are selling now. They may have had other products in the past. We don't know what he used, but it doesn't matter, it was just the weapon he had to hand. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hilarious. And a transparent effort too. In any case from the comments above there would be sufficient consensus for the plan I suggested, as every comment that wasnt "support" suggested it. Fig (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Rifle used in Sandy Hook shooting
In an edit comment where information about the Sandy Hook shooting was removed, an editor said "According to a reference produced by another editor, this is not the rifle used in the shooting." - What is that reference - could you bring it here in the discussion again so we can assess if it is from a reputable source? Thanks. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Miguel says this one references it as the XM15 E2S: [3] , which I dont consider a proper reference because it doesn't say this rifle was used in the text, it merely has an image of this rifle. In any case, if this content is moved up to a XM15 family page then this all becomes irrelevant as we can just say that the rifle used was from the XM15 family, which everyone agrees on. Fig (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Another reference to the type of rifle being a Bushmaster XM15-E2S is here. This confirms the photo with the label released previously to law enforcement that was included in the previous reference. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The evidence photos have recently been released, and the weapon used to kill all victims at the school appears to be the carbine variant, i.e. one of the weapons covered by this page. Correct? If so, the consensus wording re Sandy Hook, agreed to some time ago, should be re-inserted. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I added this fact; however, users ROG5728 and Mike Searson have been removing the edit. The edit has a source included, the same source used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article in fact. I'd like to get some consensus on this and avoid any sort of edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.45.140 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have included a new reference which states Carbine M4...the article previously states that Bushmaster markets his weapon as the XM15 as stated in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.45.140 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have included another reference which states that the weapon used was an XM15. This is a variant of the Bushmaster M4 according to the first paragraph in the overview of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.45.140 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The XM-15 is a different rifle from the M4, look at the profile of the barrel. The official report from CT does not list it as an M4, feel free to put it in the XM-15 article as we discussed 2 years ago on this..--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ18:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's the Bushmaster XM15 M4 carbine range. Here are released evidence photos of the weapon used against the victims at the school; photo, photo (there are other different-angle evidence photos out there). Here is the (partial) identification of the weapon released by the Connecticut DESPP. So, the weapon used at Sandy Hook was the .223 caliber "M4-type Patrolman's Carbine", the first listed on that Bushmaster product page. Note: the M4A2 Patrolman's Carbine range have telestocks. In the evidence photos the telestock is extended on the Sandy Hook weapon. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to one external link on Bushmaster M4-type Carbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Editing the lede, I added in the word "firearm" after "carbine". User:BilCat removed that word with the explanation, " Unnecessary - if they don't know, they can click on the link or look at the photo" I disagree, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have added it. I think that BilCat's reasoning is flawed in a few ways. He applies the wrong standard ("necessity" instead of "usefulness"). He deletes a word that does not harm the flow of the article in any way nor distract from article in anyway. And he assumes that people can click on the link or look at the photo.
Clearly it is useful to include "firearm" in the lede or otherwise I woudn't have found it necessary to put it in. It is particularly useful to the vast majority of humanity that doesn't speak English natively or are not familiar with the numerous multiple categories of firearms. (See folks who confuse "automatic" with "semi-automatic") No one has suggested that it interfered with the flow or otherwise harmed the artile. And it is plainly incorrect to say that people can click on the link or look at the photo. Yes, readers of article on the Wikipedia website can do that many Wikipedia articles are used in any number of ways, including a short clip on search engines. Not all of these readers can easily click on a link or are shown a photo. Further that assumes a level of interest in the readers that may not be there. Then there is WP:Manual of Style/Linking which says "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links..." Since there is no harm to including the word and clearly some benefit to include the word, I suggest that we add it back in.
One last point, using a subjective definition of "necessity" to revert good-faith changes by other editors is one way to drive away editors. It insults good-faith editors. Wikipedia suffers from a lack of editors and especially a lack of new editors. We have to be careful not to drive away editors by acting like a WP:OWNER. Before reverting a good faith edit, we need to adopt a higher standard than that we do not understand why it is necessary. Clearly some body thought it was necessary. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it. We should humble accept their judgment of necessity and only revert changes that are clearly harmful to the article. In this case, what is the harm of "firearm"? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying "The gray wolf or grey wolf (Canis lupus[a]), also known as the timber wolf or western wolf, is a canid mammal native to the wilderness and remote areas of North America and Eurasia, which are continents." It's redundant, and bad grammar. Adding "firearm" to the lead is just as redundant, and it's completely unnecessary for the reader. Most people know that a carbine is a type of firearm (though they may not know anything more specific). And the image is clearly of a firearm.
And I don't think BilCat did anything wrong here. You made an edit and he partially reverted it with a clear explanation. That's not WP:OWN; that's just editing. Something doesn't have to be "clearly harmful" to be reverted; it just needs to be inferior to the old version. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bushmaster M4-type Carbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Bushmaster M4-type Carbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "self-cited and promotional". Please let me know if there are any concerns. There are still citations to primary sources, so I'm keeping the tag for now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. Removed material which fails inclusion criteria at WP:GUNS#Criminal use--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
