Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

deleted use in Aurora shooting per Wikiproject firearms

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use 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". Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; the rifle's manufacturer has been unmentioned in almost every article that I've read. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-withstanding the suggestion on the WikiProject, both the Aurora shooting and the San Bernardino shooting are notable enough for inclusion. If there is disagreement, an RFC may be the best way to go. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Including them is one thing. Adding more detail is another. Talking about an aftermarket magazine, made by another company, has no place in the article since it's actually not about the rifle (the subject), but about the incident. If people want to know that info, they can click the provided link to the article about the incident. Same applies to the San Bernadino entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• It's about as WP:Undue as mentioning the San Bernardino shooting in the Islam or Pakistani Americans pages, or mentioning the Aurora shooting in the Mixed state (psychiatry) page. Unless we find a reliable source about the M&P15 that mentions the incident(s) in question, then it doesn't belong in the M&P15 Wikipedia article. The articles on the shootings can and should link here, but not the other way around unless someone else has made that same connection in a reliable secondary source. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

July discussion

2012 Aurora shooting

An M&P15 rifle was one of three weapons used by James Eagan Holmes in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, mass shooting at a movie theater that killed 12 people and injured 70 others. Subsequently, gun laws in the state became stricter.

2015 San Bernardino shooting

One of the four guns used on the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, in which 14 people were killed and 21 injured, was a Smith & Wesson M&P15. In response to the attacks, the California legislature passed a number of gun control measures.

References

I've restored mention of the two massacres. Both shootings resulted in new gun legislation, thus fulfilling the suggestion at WP:GUNS. Without that material, it's not clear how yet another AR-15 knockoff is even notable. Felsic2 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

One of three and one of four. The shootings did, the weapons didn't. Aurora resulted in magazine bans and increased background checks, neither of which have anything to do with the M&P15, while San Bernardino involved a DPMS AR as well as an M&P15 and resulted in tightening of the laws re: bullet buttons (even from what I can tell the guns the San Bernardino terrorists actually used didn't have bullet buttons, they just owned another gun that did) and more magazine capacity bans. As for its own notability, it's notable as Smith & Wesson's return to the rifle market (Smith & Wesson being one of America's oldest and most well-known gun manufacturers and all) and for being used by three police forces. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The weapon achieved significant notability for its use in those shootings. Laws were changed as a result of the shooting that used the weapon. It's slicing the WP:GUN essay rather finely to say that it only applies under the narrowest of circumstances.

Regarding notability for police use, the only sources reporting that are niche publications. OTOH, its use in the shootings have been reported by multiple mainstream publications, which are far more prominent. Per WP:NPOV, that's a factor in WP:DUE and hence the weight that should be given the issue. That weight is not zero. Felsic2 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No laws actually related to the weapon were changed in either case; magazine bans are to do with magazines, not guns. And you're again trying to use that "my sources are better!" argument which has only been dealt with about fifty times by half a dozen different editors. Give it a rest, Felsic. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(I posted the text in question above, for reference). Here's what the WP:GUN essay says:

• 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).

The Carcano was not banned. Mail order sales of rifles were banned. This material is well within that paraeter, if we still want to honor that. Felsic2 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in that instance the ban is mentioned in the context of the shooting on the page because the shooting itself satisfies the criteria (vast increase in infamy from people claiming he couldn't have done that with the rifle he used); if nobody had really heard of the Carcano following it, I wouldn't say it was worth noting on the basis of just the ban on mail order sales. I think it's pushing the intent of that rule to mention bans that have a dubious relationship with the weapon in question (because it wasn't the only weapon used, in both cases). Herr Gruber (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where there's any reason why we'd treat shootings differently because additional weapons were used. That can be mentioned in passing. FWIW, Oswald used two weapons, including a revolver to short Officer Tippit.

The legislation clause and the fame clause in "WP:GUN# Criminal use" are separate. One or the other will do. It's not necessary to meet both standards.

The California legislation has been explicitly tied to the shooting committed with this gun, among others. I don't think it's a dubious or tangential relationship. Would more sources help establish that point? Felsic2 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article which directly connects the Colorado legislation to the Aurora shooting: [1] Felsic2 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see this really applying, the only way to make it look like it applies is to obfuscate what exactly was changed about firearms laws (by saying they just "became stricter" without saying how). And Oswald's shooting of Tippit was very, very incidental, it's not like he's famous as the guy who shot some cop or other. Also, that source doesn't just connect it to Aurora, it also connects it to Sandy Hook and Tucson, so it's not really a good source for claiming it was purely to do with one shooting. That's kind of the thing: it wasn't. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Colorado legislation is directly tied to the Aurora shooting. The main weapon used in the Aurora shooting was the Smith & Wesson M&P15. Are you disputing either of those assertions? Felsic2 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Focusing on the points that support your claims while ignoring the ones the contradict them doesn't really help you. The Colorado legislation, according to your own source, is tied to several other shootings as well. Also, the "main gun" is more than a little dubious since he opened fire with his shotgun and a shotgun in a confined space is actually far more dangerous than a rifle, there's a reason Germany tried to have the shotgun banned as a weapon of war after seeing what they did when American GIs used them in trenches. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's typical for laws to have many justifications. There are plenty of sources which tie te Colorado statutes to this shooting. I'll find some and add it back.

It doesn't matter exactly how many shells were fired from each weapon. What matters is that it was a major part of the attack, which led to the legislation. But, once we find a number we can add the precise details if that makes it better. Felsic2 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The question isn't if they tie Aurora to the laws, it's that they don't also tie other things to them. When you evaluate evidence you look for things that would disprove your theory first, that's the only way you can arrive at a balanced conclusion. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no rule that a law has to be tied exclusivelt to one crime. The 1968 Gun Control Act was initiated by a number of crimes. Is there some other crime in Colorado that featured a 100-round magazine that's discussed in reference to the law? Felsic2 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Did the Colorado law only ban 100-round magazines? Herr Gruber (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Felsic2 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

December discussion

This discussion never went anywhere. The shootings meet the WP:GUNS criteria. The material is well sourced. The text is short and neutral. I'm going to restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. I see people opposing it, but you're the only one I'm seeing demanding inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

What's your basis for deleting it? Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to your old tricks again, Felsic2? The previous discussion did not end in a consensus in favour of your changes, which means you can't add the material. Period. The discussion, in your opinion, "not going anywhere" doesn't change that: you proposed a change, your change was opposed, both by reverting your edit and by voicing the opposition on the talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question I asked Niteshift36. What's your basis for opposing this material? It is compliant with the WP:GUNS guideline which you have supported.

Also, please don't use personal attacks, such as accusing me of "tricks". Felsic2 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

??? The only reason Niteshift36 needs to oppose your edit is that other editors don't support it, as can be seen in the section above this one. And accusing you of tricks isn't a personal attack, it's an accurate description of a type of tendentious editing that you have been engaging in on multiple articles, making an edit that you know you don't have the support from other editors for some time after the discussion has ended, hoping that other editors won't notice. But if you feel it's a personal attack you are of course free to file a report against me on WP:ANI. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not a valid reason to delete sourced material. If no one can provide a valid reason for omitting the material then I'll restore it. There's nothing tricky about that. Felsic2 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not how it works, as you have been told multiple times, including on WP:ANI (where you escaped a block by the narrowest possible margin...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if @Niteshift36: has any justification for his edit. Felsic2 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*There's no consensus for including it. There's plenty of people opposing it. It appears your assessment that it meets the criteria reaches a conclusion only you hold. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

His "justification" for daring to revert you is in his edit summary, clearly pointing out that there's no consensus in favour of adding it back again. In case you missed it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for deletion. I don't see either of you providing actual reasons for omitting this material. Again, simply saying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" isn't an argument. If you have an actual reason then please give it. Or propose compromise text so that we can resolve this issue. Felsic2 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, you want consensus?

1. Support excluding the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support excluding the material, not only until the next time Felsic2 tries to add it again, but for good. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: You appeared to accept the mention of these incidents in December of 2105 last year.[2] Since then, the California Legislature has passed laws in response to the San Bernardino shootings, concerning this exact firearm and making the incident of even greater relevance to this article. May I ask what changed your mind to oppose it now?

As a compromise, I propose merging the incidents into one paragraph, without the bold subheadings. Would that be acceptable? Felsic2 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• No, I didn't support it. Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. But what has changed from a year ago? Well, a lot of discussion and nobody but you pushing this. In other words, you never got consensus to include it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I only see one comment from you, which seemed to object only to the amount of detail. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post. I don't think Herr Gruber, who did discuss it, had any policy-based points that stood up to scrutiny. And you're not presenting any at all.

What is objectionable about the compromise I proposed today? Here it is:

Criminal use

An M&P15 rifle was one of three weapons used by James Eagan Holmes in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, mass shooting at a movie theater that killed 12 people and injured 70 others. Subsequently, gun laws in the state became stricter. One of the four guns used on the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, in which 14 people were killed and 21 injured, was a Smith & Wesson M&P15. In response to the attacks, the California legislature passed a number of gun control measures.

Extended content
References

That meets the guideline at WP:GUNS - "...legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage". Without the extra bold subheadings, and compressed into one paragraph it's less visually prominent than the previous version. If it's not to your liking could you please suggest some text that's better? Felsic2 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree that it meets the guideline. I still oppose inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• While WP:GUNS is just a suggested style guide, it has the support of a number of editors. There are two criteria for inclusion - increased notoriety or fresh legislation. I suppose it meets both criteria, but let's stick with the legislation threshold for now. There are thresholds to pass: 1) Was the firearm used in a crime? 2) Did that criminal use result in legislation being passed? There appear to be ample sources establishing both elements for both crimes. In what way do you believe that the proposed text does not qualify? Felsic2 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• You do realize that I'm not the only one who opposed it, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but since discussions aren't votes it's necessary to provide an actual reason of opposing content. You've said it doesn't meet the WP:GUNS guideline, but you haven't said why. There are ample sources showing it meets the guideline, so absent further explanation it looks like you're mistaken. Felsic2 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have, I just haven't provided you with the answer you want. So you claim there was legislation changed by this particular rifle. What legislation was a result of this rifle alone? (and please, don't give me a long list of sources. 2 reliable sources would be fine as a starting point. Again, not a giant wall of text. Not 50 sources that mention something. Not a bunch of side issues please. Just 2 RS's that show legislation that was changed because of this particular rifle. I'll say that the 2 you used don't show that. The Guardian talks about how Columbine, Aurora and shootings in 2 other states were part of the cause of the changes. The changes included background check changes and magazine size limits. This particular rifle is never mentioned, nor were AR-15's singled out for legislation, let alone this particular model. The Denver channel source again talks about Aurora and Newtown, background checks and magazine limits, but nothing involving AR-15's or this model in particular. In fact, neither source really points at Aurora as the sole reason. Incidentally, the Aurora shooting involved 3 firearms and the Glock would also fit into the 15 round (or larger) catagory, so it could be argued the Glock was just as much the reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have, I just haven't provided you with the answer you want. . I don't see where you made any reference to legislation before this answer. Sorry if I missed your previous posting - was it on this page?
• Before I get into providing sources regarding the passage of legislation, I want to confirm that this is your sole objection. In other words, I won't be spending time refuting one issue and then have another issue raised. Let's get everything out on the table at once. Do you have any other objections before we start with the legislation? Felsic2 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't specify the legislation. I said it didn't meet the criteria. That was your answer. And no, it isn't necessarily my sole objection, but I will only discuss one at a time with you because you have a propensity to try drowning people in sources that prove what isn't in contention and try to argue 6 different directions at the same time. I have presented you with an objection. Either address it or don't. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1) OK, sorry for having so much trouble interpreting your posts. You seemed to refer back to points made by someone else as if you'd made them yourself, which confused me. If the issue isn't legislation then which aspect of the criteria is unmet?
• 2) It'd be helpful to find out all of the objections so that we can discuss them efficiently. It'd really be helpful if there weren't so many personal comments - let's just stick to talking about the content.
• 3) Sources are the basis for Wikipedia articles, and more are better. I don't understand your aversion to them.
• 4) As for other weapons used in the San Bernardino shooting, we can discuss those on their relevant talk pages. Let's stick to discussing the Smith & Wesson M&P15.
• 5) Regarding the fact that legislation changed as a result of this a crime in which this gun was used, here is the lead from an article in the Los Angeles Times:

The state Senate on Thursday approved sweeping new restrictions on using guns in California in response to the December mass shooting by two terrorists that left 14 dead in San Bernardino.[3]

Similar points are made in other Times articles and other sources.[4][5][6]

• 6) Is there any doubt that a Smith & Wesson M&P15, the subject of this article, was used in the 2015 San Bernardino attack?
• 7) The author of California Senate bill SB880, sometimes referred to as the "Bullet button ban" though it covers additional issues, specifically referenced this firearm and this shooting in the analysis of the bill - "Need for This Bill".[7] Felsic2 (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1) Legislation IS one of my objections. I said it's not the ONLY objection.
• 2) It would be helpful if you address the objection at hand instead of trying to address several issues at once.
• 3) Sources are great. 20 sources saying the same thing aren't needed, especially when the objection isn't about lack of sources, but lack of sources saying what is being claimed.
• 4) I didn't talk about the San Bernedino weapons, you did. The Glock I mentioned is from the Aurora shooting, one of the incidents you are mentioning here specifically and used in the sources you claim support your position.
• 5) The source you use here isn't supporting you. The first "sweeping restriction" is related to ammo purchases, which has nothing to do with the Smith and Wesson M&P15. Another was magazine capacity, which again isn't anything directly related to this particular firearm. It would apply as much to the many handguns as it would to this rifle. The third was about what they call the "bullet button" (an ignorant name). That's not something that was just this firearm, this model or anything like that. In fact, it's closing what they term a "loophole" in the 1989 law. The Atlantic source mentions the SB incident, along with a number of others that did not involve this particular firearm. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1) If it meets the legislative criteria (or the notoriety criteria) then I assume it is acceptable under that guideline.
• 3) Quantity and quality of sources is one of the elements of WP:WEIGHT, a core content policy.
• 4) The text in question concerns the San Bernardino shooting. If you don't have any objection to that part of the text then say so.
• 5) The SB incident did involve this weapon. The specific laws passed as a result dealt with various aspects of firearms commerce and ownership. Just because some aspects cover other weapons doesn't mean that the SB shooting using this weapon wasn't an inspiration for those laws.
• 7) Does this source satisfy your concerns? Felsic2 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1)I don't know why you'd assume that. I said it is not my only objection.
• 3) You have quantity, but you're missing the quality in that it doesn't prove what you're claiming. Additional quantity won't overcome that.
• 4) What are you talking about? First you say to talk about the SB weapons at other pages, then you talk about them here. Stop acting like you're creating some tricky word trap and just speak plainly.
• 5) The SB incident involved this weapon, but the SB incident wasn't the sole reason for any of the laws being changed that related to so-called assault weapons.
• 7) No, for the same reason as above. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1) What is your foremost objection, per Wikipedia policy? We should deal with that first.
• 2) If you could be specific in your objections, and tie them to specific Wikipedia policy language, then it would be easier to resolve this dispute.
• 3) Quantity matters for a number of reasons, even if we don't include all of the possible sources in the article. Quality matters too. Material from a high quality source, like a reputable main-stream publication such as the New York Times, deserves great weight than a press release from the manufacturer, a product catalog, a blog, or a niche publisher. Those are the existing sources in this article. To keep mediocre sourced and delete excellent ones is not good editing.
• 4) The only weapon that's relevant on this page is the Smith & Wesson M&P15. The contents of the Glock article are the topic of another talk page. There's no dispute that the M&P15 was prominently featured in coverage of the Aurora and SB shootings, is there?
• 5) If I understand correctly, you acknowledge that the shootings in Aurora and SB were cited as causes for new gun laws. However you dispute two things: A) that those shootings were the sole causes; B) that the M&P15 was the sole weapon used. If I've miss-stated those please correct me. Starting with "B", there's no question that in both shooting multiple weapons were used, but I don't see why that makes the shootings less significant. If a sea battle involves several warships its not less significant than one with only a single combatant. As for "A", I don't see the issue here either. The WP:Gun project's style page criteria does not have any requirement for that we can only mention laws passed due to one event only. Such a threshold wouldn't make any sense as it would exclude almost every law.
• 7) Here's another primary source confirming the secondary sources:

In 2013, in the wake of a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, the Colorado General Assembly enacted gun control legislation that included two new criminal statutes: (1) C.R.S. § 18-12-302, banning the sale, possession, and transfer of "large-capacity magazines," as that term is statutorily-defined; and (2) C.R.S. § 18-12-112, expanding mandatory background checks to recipients of firearms in some private transfers. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger

• To recap: The M&P15 was used in both shootings. Both shootings inspired new gun legislation. Please explain what else you want to establish that this material may be included in the article. Felsic2 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1)Sigh.... we're discussing the legislative part. Focus please. That's where we are not. Please stop trying to figure out where we may go.
• 2) I have been specific. I have addressed your claim that it passes the criteria at GUNS. I've told you why I disagree. Adding a load of Wikilinks to the same things over and over won't change anything.
• 3) You tend to focus too much on quantity. 100 sources, no matter how good they are, don't matter if they don't support what you're saying. That's why I've asked for a focus on a few that actually say what you are asserting, instead of a lot that allude to what you think they meant.
• 4) I used the Glock as an example. Do you truly not understand that? And the majority of sources simply said things like "assault rifle" or "AR-15". A relatively small percentage actually specified this rifle. (and no, please don't give me a list of sources that mentioned it. I don't dispute that some did. Most did not.)
• 5)In some cases, the shooting at Aurora and SB were listed, but often with other mass shootings. You forget that Sandy Hook and a couple of other events happened in between Aurora and SB. Many of the sources you've offered list Sandy Hook (which used a AR-15, but not this one) alongside Aurora and SB. Some also list other events, like Columbine (which also didn't use this rifle).
• 7) "in the wake of a mass shooting" does mean that the use of this rifle was the cause. Colorado had other mass shootings in the years leading up to that, including one I can think of that used a AR15 (not this one). Additionally, the Aurora shooting used other firearms besides this one. What you are quoting is a line from a civil suit that is explaining the timeline of the law being challenged, not explaining the cause.
• To recap: "To recap: The M&P15 was used in both shootings. Both shootings inspired new gun legislation" That's a false premise. Both of these incidents used handguns with high capacity magazines. The laws you point at include regulating high capacity magazines. See where that goes? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

1) I just want to make sure that the main issues are addressed in a timely fashion.

2) We differ on the interpretation of that criteria, apparently. More on that below.

3) Quantity and quality both matter.

4) Now you're making a quantitative argument after just discounting quantity. Lots and lots of sources refer to this weapon by name in reference to those two crimes. I don't know how you know that "most" sources don't use one or another term, or how that matters. That's mostly a "notoriety" issue though. The bottom line is that there's no doubt these weapons were used.

5) I'm not sure how Sandy Hook is relevant here. This weapon wasn't used in that shooting, nor in Columbine.

6) You appear to be misinterpreting the criteria. There's no requirement whatsoever that a law be passed solely because of a single incident. The 1968 gun control act was not passed solely due to Kennedy's assassination, yet that is one of the examples given in the criteria. I challenge you to name three gun control laws in the US which were passed as the result of single incidents. You're setting an impossible standard which was never intended by the drafters of that criteria.

7) Why would they mention it if they weren't related. They could have said that the laws passed in the wake of Christmas too, but that wouldn't make any sense. When a judge is reviewing a law and says it passed following a criminal incident, they are clearly connecting the one thing to the other.

7b) I'm not sure I get your point about high capacity magazines on handguns. Could you clarify? Felsic2 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1) This issue is being addressed now.

2) We do. But I'm not trying to make a point with my interpretation.

3) Both matter, but quantity doesn't matter when it doesn't say what you claim it says.

4) No, I'm not arguing quantity alone. Simplified: If 100 sources covered an earthquake and a single one of them said it was the most devastating earthquake ever, we probably wouldn't label it as the worst earthquake ever. Understand?

5) Do you even read the responses? Most of your sources are citing Sandy Hook as driving legislative change as much (or more) than the Aurora shooting. You're claiming that the shootings involving THIS firearm are what made the changes happen, but your sources place as much (or more) responsibility on Sandy Hook. No, I'm not discussing Sandy Hook, I'm telling you that your sources do.

6) Actually, I'm not misrepresenting it. Saying that magazine laws were changed because of this particular rifle isn't being supported because other weapons involved used high capacity magazines and this rifle wasn't used in most of the incidents being discussed in the sources.

7) Related and causation are not the same thing.

7) You keep claiming that the use of THIS RIFLE caused changes in laws about high capacity magazines. You keep ignoring the fact that other weapons used had high capacity magazines as well. Some of the incidents named not only didn't use THIS RIFLE, but no AR15 at all, yet are still mentioned because they used firearms with high capacity magazines. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

2) We're both using our interpretations of the criteria. You're using it as justification for your deletion of sourced material. I think the material belongs for many reasons, the least of which is that barely reputable Wikiproject criteria.

3 & 4) We have dozens of highly reliable sources which say that this gun was used in two highly notable shootings. We have zero (cited) sources that say "The pistol grip is the M16A2-style with finger rest ridge." Yet you are deleting the material with many good sources while keeping the stuff without any sources. Yes, quality and quantity matter, and there are many good sources which confirm the material you deleted.

5 & 6 & 7) Sure, there are many shootings in the US. And they had led to additional laws. The Aurora and SB shootings were among them. You seem to be denying that they led to laws being passed. Instead, you seem to be saying that legislators were disregarding those attacks and just making laws for no particular reason. That's obviously incorrect. Many sources give those shootings as the cause of those laws. In the case of the Aurora shooting in which the perp used a 100-round magazine, the use of a high capacity magazine was a major factor in the shooting. Entire articles have been written about that fact.

8) I'll make this a separate point and simplify it so it doesn't get lost again. Please give an example of one national gun control law in the US which you believe meets the criteria under your interpretation. Felsic2 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources focusing on the high capacity magazine used by Holmes for his Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle:

• Colorado shooter used shotgun, assault-style rifle with 100-round drum magazine NBC News
• Gun's magazine shaped the pace of Colorado theater massacre Los Angeles Times

Are there any articles about other high capacity magazines he used? Felsic2 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2) The difference is that the absence of the information doesn't make a claim that this particular rifle led to legislative changes. Your inclusion does.
• 3&4) See, this is where we go astray. Nobody is denying that this rifle was used in 2 notable shootings. You're arguing something that isn't being contested. What IS being contested is the later impact of this particular rifle. If you want to tag the pistol grip description for a citation needed, knock yourself out.
• 5+) I don't imply that the 2 attacks were disregarded. I'm saying that you're over-selling their impact.
• 8) That is really a separate discussion. You've complained repeatedly about me mentioning that a Glock pistol was also used, telling me to discuss that elsewhere. Now you want to discuss laws unrelated to this rifle? Why, so you can tell me that doesn't belong here? Forget it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

:2) I contend that the sources do say that the shootings which were committed with this rifle were on the minds of legislators when they passed new laws. Apparently we disagree.

3&4) Everything should be included depending on WP:WEIGHT. If we remove all of the material in this article with fewer sources than those reporting its criminal use, then that will be the whole article. Nothing about this rifle is more notable or significant than its criminal use. Both the quantity and quality support the inclusion of these shootings.

5) What about this rifle has had more impact than these two shootings? Its pistol grip? Its length? The answer is nothing has had more impact than these two shootings.

8) I asked you to find a single example that could fulfil your interpretation of the criteria. Perhaps you can't because it's an unrealistic standard. This criteria is dubious to begin with, as it implies ownership by WP:GUNS. But if the criteria is interpreted like that then it's clearly invalid. Felsic2 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2) I'm aware of what you contend. But we don't get to guess what was on their minds. That's OR or SYNTH.

3/4) You're providing sources that don't say what you claim. WEIGHT isn't the issue. An overwhelming number of sources that don't say what is claimed has zero weight.

• 5) Aside from overestimating the impact of this rifle, the question isn't what has had more impact. The question is whether it meets the criteria for inclusion.
• 8)Whether I can or can't is immaterial. You've demanded over and over that we not talk about things not related narrowly to this rifle. If I can't mention other things used in the shootings without you complaining, I'm not going to allow you to change the rules when it suits a psudeo-point you're attempting to make. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If we can't agree on the legislative criteria then this part of the discussion is pointless. Let's move on to other reasons why this material belongs on the article. Do you have another objection you'd like to raise? Felsic2 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I count 4 editors, in addition to me, that have opposed inclusion for a number of reasons. I've spent plenty of time here discussing this with you and find your reasoning unconvincing. There does appear to be a rough consensus to exclude the material, but you have nothing resembling a consensus to include it. Discussing more reasons doesn't seem like it would be productive. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

:I count 4 editor who have supported the inclusion, so there's no consensus. That's why I'm continuing to discuss this. We're the only two who are active now, You indicated you had other objections, if I understand correctly. If you choose to keep them to yourself then they can't be addressed and don't really matter here. I'll go ahead and start the next thread. Felsic2 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What 4 editors? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: Where do you find those four editors supporting your proposed addition? From what I can see only one editor in addition to you has made a comment on this page that perhaps can be seen as giving you at least some support, while everyone else here is opposing you. Besides, in order to add your material, i.e. change status quo, you need more editors supporting you here, than opposing you, so you wouldn't be able to add it even if your imaginary four supporters really existed... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in the current discussion only two editors have presented reasons pro or con, Niteshift36 and myself. If you have any input on the legislative issue then that'd be helpful. Felsic2 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's very selective reading of things here. I expressly opposed adding it, and have explained why multiple times on multiple pages, and my NO stands, even if I don't reply to every single one of your umpteen posts here, posts saying the same things over and over again. And how about answering my question? Who are the four editors on this page who you claim support you? Because I can't find any... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't expressed any policy basis for excluding this material, so your comments amount to "I don't like it". See Wikipedia:I just don't like it, among other essays, for the problem with that. The only person I see making actual arguments here is Niteshift36. I don't see four editors making arguments against inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Essays carry no weight whatsoever, and when making arguments in a discussion like this you do not need to point to a specific policy, pointing to a long-standing consensus within the gun-project (a consensus based on policy), as I have repeatedly done on multiple pages, is equally valid. And people who try to Wikilawyer without knowing even the most basic things about "Wiki-law", such as what an essay is, are just silly. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Essays carry a certain amount of weight. WP:GUNS is the equivalent of an essay, yet some editors believe it should be used to determine the content of this article.

WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. It says, in part: In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. So the quality of the argument is a key aspect. Arguments should be based on sources, article focus, and policy, not on repeated assertions of a lack of consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Where are those 4 editors? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, since you mentioned them first please list the four editors you're talking about. Felsic2 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's simple: Gailin42, Faceless Enemy, Herr Gruber, Thomas W and me. 5. Well? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You're counting a comment from 26 July 2012 as part of a current discussion? OK, so we're using very very broad standards. Felsic2 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• The July discussion is essentially the same one. Why wouldn't we count them? And I'm really wondering what lame excuse you will use next to dodge the fact that you can't list the 4 editors in this discussion that support you. Just own up to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• I wonder what is a reasonable amount of time to wait for Felsic2 to answer the question. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in what departed editors wrote a year ago. If you want to research the history of this article and the talk page knock yourselves out. Felsic2 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that they opposed this same material, there are two current editors actively opposing it. No need to "research history", it's right here. Now stop avoiding the question: WHERE ARE THE FOUR EDITORS? You can either 1) prove it, 2) admit your error or 3) be exposed as a liar. Ball is in your court sunshine. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You can keep your ball, thanks. I'm focused on current discussions. Felsic2 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for picking option 3. I'm rather glad that you've chosen to leave a verifiable example of you making a false claim, being given several opportunities to correct your b.s. fabrication and choosing to try to divert attention away from it. That diff will probably come in handy. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• A week has passed and Felsic2 still hasn't managed to produce those 4 names.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand your obsession with this matter. Let's just say that I was including "me myself and I". Satisfied? :) Felsic2 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• My "obsession" is that you've made a claim and, despite requests from 2 different editors, have refused to substantiate it. Not only was the claim unsubstantiated, it has every appearance of being an out and out fabrication. Your refusal to simply call it an error indicates that you stand by the statement. So if you stand by it, prove it. And "Me, myself and I" is not 4 editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the substantive issues raised in this thread is that this rifle was only one of three firearms used in the Aurora shooting. Here's a source which addresses that issue:

An assault-style rifle made by Smith & Wesson was among the weapons James Holmes used to kill 12 people and injure 58 in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last July. Ten of the 12 victims were killed by bullets sprayed by the .223-caliber assault-style weapon.[8][9]

So it would appear that this rifle was responsible fr the majority of the deaths. Felsic2 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• And? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Significant coverage

Denver Post

A bullet leaves the barrel of a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 traveling at 3,000 feet per second, covering the space of a large room seven times faster than a human can react.

Five spiraling grooves inside the rifle’s barrel spin the bullet clockwise to improve accuracy. And, when the bullet strikes a person, it causes what Colorado Bureau of Investigation agent Dale Higashi on Wednesday called a “snowstorm effect,” breaking into hundreds of little flakes.

“The damage it causes to the target, the damage it causes to the bullet itself, is dramatic,” Higashi said.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, testimony in Arapahoe County District Court told the microscopic story of the Aurora movie theater shooting.

Three evidence analysts described in tedious detail their scientific analysis of bullet fragments, pieces of metal and gunshot-residue swabs. On Wednesday, Higashi testified that, out of the 150 bullets, shell casings and fragments he looked at, all of the items he could trace linked back to one of three guns — including the Smith & Wesson rifle — investigators say James Holmes used inside the theater in July 2012.

-Ingold, John (April 27, 2016). "Theater shooting: CBI analyst testifies all bullets at crime scene link back to Holmes". The Denver Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

This source is sufficient to add text like: "Bullets fired from Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifles travel at 3,000 feet per second and create a "snowstorm effect" of shrapnel when they break up upon hitting a human body, according to an expert testifying in the 2012 Aurora shooting trial." Felsic2 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times

The defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban limited most clip sizes to 10 rounds; police say the theater shooter had a .223-caliber Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle with a drum clip that could hold up to 100 rounds and shoot as many as 60 times in a minute.

...

The gunman first used the shotgun, according to a law enforcement official quoted in the Washington Post, then pulled out the AR-15. It's not yet known how many people were injured by which weapon, and police have said they don’t know how many rounds were fired in total.

But anecdotal evidence thus far has suggested a semi-steady stream of gunfire.

In interviews with the Los Angeles Times, witnesses in Aurora said they couldn't immediately leave the theater because the shooter had pinned down the audience with continuous fire after an initial shot in the air, which forced many to the floor.

“Shots just started being fired -- so many,” said Tayler Trujillo, 18. “It stopped for a second, and everybody was, like, ‘Go! Go! Go!’, but then he started to fire again and then I had to go back down.”

A federal law enforcement official told the Associated Press that the shooter’s AR-15 with the large magazine jammed, forcing to him to switch to another weapon and begin firing again. Police have said they don’t know how many rounds the shooter fired.

Pearce, Matt (July 22, 2012). "Gun's magazine shaped the pace of Colorado theater massacre". Los Angeles Times.

This source is sufficient to write: "The Smith & Wesson M&P15, equipped with a 100-round magazine, used by James Holmes in the 2012 Aurora shooting reportedly emitted a "semi-steady stream of gunfire" before jamming." Felsic2 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Violence Policy Center

Early on Friday morning, July 20, 2012, 24-year-old James Holmes walked into a midnight showing at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Holmes was armed with a 223-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P15 (an AR-15 assault rifle variant) a 40 caliber Glock semiautomatic pistol, and a Remington 12 gauge shotgun. Another Glock pistol was found in his car. He was wearing body armor and had fitted his Smith & Wesson assault rifle with a drum magazine, which was capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition in a single loading. After tossing some sort of incendiary or smoke device into the theater, Holmes allegedly opened fire on the theater’s patrons. Within minutes, at least 12 people were killed and 58 wounded. Several of the wounded were grievously injured.

Holmes’s use of Smith & Wesson’s M&P15 assault rifle demonstrates the clear and present danger of a gun designed for war and ruthlessly marketed for profit to civilians.

...

The money continued to roll in. On July 20, 2009, exactly three years to the day before the Aurora mass murder, Golden stated in an interview that a “category that has been extremely hot is tactical rifles, AR style tactical rifles.” On a June 2009 investors conference call, Golden enthused that “tactical rifles were up almost 200% versus the same period the year before. We have increased our capacity on that rifle.” The company was doing so well with its assault rifles that it decided to introduce a new variant in 22 caliber because the ammunition is much cheaper than the military-style ammunition used in the M&P15.

"Understanding the Smith & Wesson M&P15 Semiautomatic Assault Rifle Used in the Aurora, Colorado Mass Murder" (PDF). The Violence Policy Center. July 2012.

This source is sufficient to support text saying something like "Following the Smith & Wesson M&P15's use in the 2012 Aurora shooting, the Violence Policy Center noted the commercial success of the weapon and warned of "the clear and present danger of a gun designed for war and ruthlessly marketed for profit to civilians." " Felsic2 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Globe and Mail

HOW STOCK PRICES CHANGED

After two trading days

...

SMITH & WESSON HOLDING CORP. (NASDAQ: SWHC)

1. April 20, 1999: Littleton, Colo.: -10%

2. Jan. 8, 2011: Tucson, Ariz.: +1.9%

3. July 20, 2012: Aurora, Colo.: -2.6%

4. Dec. 14, 2012: Newtown, Conn.: -14.7%

Slater, Joanna (December 19, 2012). "GUN BACKLASH SPURS SUPPORT FOR NEW LAWS". The Globe and Mail.

This source would support text saying, "Immediately following the use of a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle in the 2012 Aurora Shooting, the valuation of the manufacturer dropped by 2.6 percent." Felsic2 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• And where is their stock now? This is a lot of SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

None of it is SYNTH. This is all taken from reliable sources that directly make the points I'm summarizing. As for the current price of S&W stock, if it's related to this rifle then it'd belong here too. Provide a source connecting them and we can add it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The whole thing about connecting it to stock is SYNTH. You're taking the stock price of a 165 year old company and tying it to a couple of dates and trying to make a drop of less than 3% in the immediate days after into something encyclopedic. If their stock had dropped 25% and stayed down, that might be different. When it dropped 3% and bounced back within days, it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm not tying them together. The source is. Felsic2 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry Are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It [10]

This source has a lot of material devoted to the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and its use in the Aurora shooting. Its extensive content could be summarized various ways. Parts of it are not visible in Google Books, so I'd have to get a copy to properly summarize it. But from what I can see, we could say this: "Tom Diaz writes that the Smith & Wesson M&P15 was based on a rifle designed for "[s]hooting as many people as one can". Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Showdown: The Looming Crisis Over Gun Control [11]

This book has a brief summary of the Aurora shooting and makes the point that it led to an increase in gun sales. So we could summarize it as "Following the use of a Smith & Wesson M&P15 in the Aurora shooting, gun sales in the US jumped due in part to concerns about future gun control measures." Felsic2 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and ...[12]

This book discusses the rifle's use in the Aurora shooting, which it calls the "largest mass shooting in U.S. history" (as of that time, of course). It quotes witnesses about the incident, including the constant gunshots. It also mentions the rifle jamming (as do many sources) ad the number of rounds fired in a short time. While it is significant coverage, come of its facts were superseded by later publications. Felsic2 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• You are tying it together by trying to call this an indicator of notoriety. There's nothing significant about this. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm summarizing reliable sources that talk about this rifle. See more below. Several criminology textbooks make specific reference to this rifle's use in a highly notable crime. Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Hot Seat: Love, War, and Cable News By Piers Morgan [13]

This book says that the stock price of S&W surged once President Obama made a public statement about the shooting. It could be combined with other sources for a sentence like "Following the use of a Smith & Wesson M&P15 in the Aurora shooting the value of the manufacturer's company first dipped but later surged, as did gun sales in general, on fears of future gun control." Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Criminology: The Core [14]

This book has a brief mention of the rifle's use in the Aurora shooting. However it does so in the context of that being one of the most notable shootings in criminal history. So a fair summary would be along the lines of "A Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle was used in the Aurora shooting, one of the biggest mass shootings in US history." Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to Criminal Justice [15]

Same as above. Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Harm to Others: The Assessment and Treatment of Dangerousness [16]

This book ties the current popularity of AR-15 rifles to two mass shootings, including the use of this rifle in Aurora. So we could say, "The use of a Smith & Wesson M&P15 in the Aurora shooting contributed to the popularity of AR-15 rifles." Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context [17]

This source directly connects the Aurora shooting to the introduction of gun control measures. We could say, "The Aurora shooting, in which a Smith & Wesson M&P15 was used, prompted gun bills in some states.". Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wait.... this was about notoriety. Now you're trying to say something like "The use of a Smith & Wesson M&P15 in the Aurora shooting contributed to the popularity of AR-15 rifles." That sounds more like an argument for the notoriety of the AR15. The comments you're making lead me to feel like you're not inserting material you think is important, but trying to find a way to insert what you want to say. Still not convinced. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Notoriety is in the thread above. This thread is about finding sources with significant coverage of the rifle's use in criminal incidents, so far just the Aurora shooting. As for convincing you, I'm beginning to doubt that source I could find would change your mind. Felsic2 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Mentions are not notoriety. Adding up mentions don't make it either. Significant coverage does it. That's what you're failing to show. I'm not the only one opposing this, but I am one of the few who has bothered to continue discussing it. In spite of that, you've decided that you should try to make an issue of the discussions, so perhaps I should rethink it. Maybe I should just be like the others. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Notoriety is being discussed in the thread above. This thread is a collection of significant coverage of this rifles' use. If a source discusses this weapon's use then it's logical to include it in the article. If multiple sources discuss that same use then it becomes imperative to include it. See WP:WEIGHT. Felsic2 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not a collection of signifant coverage. Mentions in a reliable source are not what constitutes significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You prefer basing this article on press releases and catalogue listings? Is this what you'd call "significant coverage"? Felsic2 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not the same thing. Significant coverage is what demonstrates notability and notoriety. A mention or something like this example can verify a fact, such as date of manufacture, barrel length etc. 2 entirely different discussions. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This rifle's use in the Aurora shooting is a fact. Felsic2 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Nobody disputes the fact that is was used there. What is being disputed is whether that use merits inclusion in this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. Felsic2 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Viewed objectively, it appears that there's one standard for information you want to include and another standard for information you prefer to exclude. If so, that's not how Wikipedia works. That's not how WP:NPOV works. Felsic2 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• How many times are you going to tell me to see WEIGHT and repeat the same argument? More than one editor has rejected it. You're the only one seeing it as a WEIGHT issue. Perhaps that should give you pause. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm making that argument because it's based on policy and sources. I haven't seen anyone making opposing arguments based on policy or sources. Felsic2 (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• You have seen arguments against it. Producing a list of different sources that are still mentions doesn't change it from the last list. Or the one before that. No matter how many mentions you dig out, you can't add them together to call them significant coverage. 2-3 sources with significant coverage would be worth more than 100 mentions. This argument is essentially the same one that has been rejected more than once, by a number of editors. Mentions don't equal weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen policy-based arguments against it. Just variations on "I don't like it".

Since you're using "significant coverage" as a reason for rejecting all these sources, could you please give your definition of that term? Felsic2 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Then you haven't been reading the objections that any of us put forth. You see to think that if someone doesn't choose to answer your question 10 times that it was never answered. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I did a word search on "significant" on this page and I honestly can't find anyplace where you defined the term "significant coverage". If you have and I've missed it all you need to do is give me the time stamp so I can locate it. There's no need to get snippy.

I don't see how you can defend this source, http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/01/23/sw-mp15-ps-and-psx-piston-ar-15/, as being more "significant" than those I've included in this section. It is a very brief mention in a self-described blog, compared to far longer texts in reliable publications. If the Aurora shooting doesn't belong in this article then neither do "facts" that have received far less attention. Felsic2 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Significant coverage isn't a black and white thing. It's something debated on daily basis in AfD discussion. a mention in an article is never significant coverage. Significant has nothing to do with the quality of the source, it has to do with the focus of the coverage. The notability guideline defines it as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." When you have a 15 paragraph article and the topic in question is merely mentioned once, that is NOT significant coverage. That's a mention. As for the other source, I've already explained that a source can be used to verify a specific point, like a date of founding or the names of a board of directors. Even primary sources can be used for that sort of thing. While something like notoriety does require significant coverage, something like the date of manufacture would not. I think a lot of this stems from the fact that you're viewing "significant" as having to do with the quality of the source, while it really is about the depth of coverage. Maybe this will clear it up. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are treating it as a black and white thing, not something open to debate. See below about quoting the notability guideline in a discussion about article content. So if that's your only reason for relying on this nebulous "significant coverage" objection then I think you're mistaken.

As for the issue of verifying a specific point, I don't see the difference between one point and another. Under NPOV, all points have equal validity, pro or con. So if you're using different standards for different material then that'd violate WP:NPOV a core content policy, which makes no mention of "significant coverage". It uses a different standard: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. For that standard, the quality and prominence of the sources are the prime factors. For example, if a high quality biography mentions, in passing, that the subject attended a certain high school then we include that fact in the school article. We don't need a entire chapter devoted to their high school career in order to justify inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not treating it as a black and white thing. I VERY CLEARLY said "Significant coverage isn't a black and white thing." How much simpler can I make that statement? The rest of your answer is complete nonsense, confusing things I actually said with things you want them to have meant. Clearly you aren't listening so there's no reason to continue trying to discuss it with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be treating it as black and white that is not open for debate since you keep shutting down the discussion. I replied to your points. Felsic2 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Letter from Public Advocate for the City of New York. [18]

Smith & Wesson firearms have been used by shooters in some of the most notorious mass-shooting events in recent years, including the 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, the 2014 shooting at Fort Hood, and the 2012 shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Most recently, news reports indicate that the shooters who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, used two Smith & Wesson firearms: a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 .223-caliber assault rifle and a Smith & Wesson handgun.

...

To further this dialogue, gun violence prevention advocates are seeking increased access to trace data about guns used in mass shootings and in everyday gun crimes.For example, the day after the shootings in San Bernardino, The New York Times published an online interactive feature, “How They Got Their Guns,” which provided information about the guns used by mass shooters in recent incidents, where the guns were purchased, and other information about how the shooters obtained the guns that they used.7 Additionally, news outlets, municipalities, and non-profit organizations are increasingly calling attention to the phenomenon of “bad apple” gun dealers (the small number of gun sellers that are the source of the vast majority of guns traced to crimes in the U.S.)and interstate gun trafficking. In 2014, the City of Chicago released a report detailing the origins of all “crime guns” (that is, guns used in criminal activity) that were confiscated by the City.8The New York Times and other outlets have extensively covered the connection between interstate gun trafficking and certain gun dealerships,9and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has launched a campaign to target “bad apple”gun dealers.10

...

The Company has not disclosed what steps it has taken to minimize the risk that the Company’s products will be used in criminal activities, including mass-shooting events. For example, the Company has not disclosed whether it has any oversight or auditing system in place to ensure that the Company’s distribution channels do not result in Smith & Wesson products being diverted illegally.

[see also: "In New Tack in Gun Debate, a Call to Investigate Smith & Wesson’s Disclosures", New York Times

Based on these sources, we could write: "Following the use of Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifles in mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and San Bernardino, California, the Public Advocate for the City of New York made a form inquiry of the SEC about Smith & Wesson's disclosures of potential "reputational harm" from criminal use of its products." Felsic2 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• We could, but it wouldn't be that relevant. A government agency makes an inquiry. So? See WP:DOGBITESMAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You're quoting a page, Wikipedia:Notability (events), that concerns the notability of events not the content of firearms articles. How many other inquiries like this have been made by government officials regarding firearms sales that have been reported in the New York Times? So far as I know, it appears unusual and noteworthy. If you're arguing that it's unsurprising and trivial, then I'd respond that much of the content of the article fits that description. Felsic2 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• First, I didn't QUOTE anything. I referenced it. Second, although it is on the page about events, the entry is not limited to events. Read the very first line: "...routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism..." Tabloid journalism isn't limited to events. Also "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items...". Crime logs aren't events. It also mentions "...the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts." (ie. "human interest" stories). So dismissing the reference as pertaining solely to events isn't accurate. But, if you want to play it that way, the announcement of the inquiry is an "event", an announcement, which is specifically mentioned. Just because the NYT covered something done by a local government agency in their own city doesn't automatically make it different from the paper in your city covering the actions of the city council. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability guidelines address the issue of which topics Wikipedia should cover in articles. They do not apply to content within articles. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I am dismissing your argument because it's based on a guideline that doesn't apply to content. Felsic2 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Dismiss whatever you want. You inability to see the larger picture or actually read what has been said is becoming tiresome. You have no consensus to add the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the "larger picture" is. I do know that numerous reliable sources talk at length about this rifles use in the Aurora shooting, as well as others. It appears that you are simply stonewalling instead of providing valid arguments. Felsic2 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, I'm getting tired of this nonsense where you refuse to hear what is said. You asked me to define "significant coverage". I gave you one of the better definitions, one located in the notability guideline. I did not, at ANY point, say that the notability guideline had to be met in the article. I said nothing of the sort. But instead of looking at what I said, which was provide you with a working definition as you requested, you hear something I didn't say AT ALL. Then you waste my time making not just one, but two responses that talk about something I didn't say. I'm not even going to wait for you to actually realize your error and own up to it. I doubt you'll surprise me. You have no consensus to add the material that has been opposed by multiple editors. I'm done entertaining every point you decide the throw against the wall in hopes something will stick, especially when you don't actually read the answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I did look at it. It's a vague definition. All it really says is that it has to be more than a short sentence. But left unanswered is why a guideline that explicitly says it's not about content is being used to delete content. At the same time, a core policy which is about content is being ignored. So if you're going to reject some material on the basis of the sources not providing "significant coverage" while supporting other material with even poorer sources then there needs to be a justification for that uneven treatment. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• You haven't listened to a thing. I'm tired of your willful avoidance of what has been said. The material has been opposed by multiple editors. Gain consensus before adding. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Aurora Gunman’s Arsenal: Shotgun, Semiautomatic Rifle and, at the End, a Pistol" New York Times [19]

The three types of weapons used by the man accused of killing 12 people in a Colorado movie theater — a semiautomatic variation of the military’s M-16 rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol — are among the most popular guns available in the multibillion-dollar American firearms market.

The weapons have become so common that a growing sport among gun enthusiasts is the “three-gun competition,” in which sharpshooters use a version of each of the weapons as they move from target set to target set, firing and reloading as rapidly as possible.

It appears, the police say, that James E. Holmes, the man accused in the Aurora shootings, used all three types of weapons inside the theater as well, first firing the shotgun, then using the semiautomatic rifle until its 100-round barrel magazine jammed, and finishing off with a pistol. (A second .40-caliber pistol was also found at the scene, though it was unclear whether it had been used in the theater.)

Without such information, much of the public and political attention has been focused on the potential deadliness of the semiautomatic rifle, which law enforcement officials identified as a Smith & Wesson M&P15. The rifle belongs to a class of weapons broadly known as AR-15s, after the original civilian version of the rifle.

...

Smith & Wesson is one of many firearms manufacturers to produce a version of the AR-15, marketing more than a dozen models that range in price from about $700 to $2,000.

The weapon is popular among collectors, military veterans and target shooters who say it is easy to handle and can be modified in numerous ways. Some soldiers call it “a Barbie doll for men” because it has a wide range of accessories and replacement parts, including different styles of barrels, stocks, magazines and scopes.

..

The M&P15 also comes in a variety of models that fire different sizes of ammunition, from .22-caliber to .30-caliber rounds. The rifle used in Aurora fired .223-caliber ammunition, law enforcement officials said.

Those rounds — similar to the ammunition used in American M-16 and M-4 rifles — are smaller than the rounds fired by Afghan insurgents wielding Kalashnikov rifles, but pack far more power than .22-caliber rounds, even though they are only a hair’s-width larger in circumference.

This source is entirely about the guns used in the Aurora shooting. It includes significant material about the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle in particular. Based on this source, we could write: "According to the New York Times, "much of the public and political attention" following the Aurora shooting was "focused on the potential deadliness" of the Smith & Wesson M&P15 used by the shooter." Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"CONNECTICUT SHOOTING; Cerberus to shed stake in gun maker; Some retailers also react to the tragedy by pulling assault weapons off shelves." Los Angeles Times

In the past, gun stocks have surged after assaults like the one in Newtown. Manufacturers Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc. outperformed the market after the Aurora shooting.

Though short, this reporting supports other sources already posted on this section about the effect of the Aurora shooting on the stock of the company that made the rifle used, showing that it's an issue of wide interest and not just a single reporter's comment. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Overheard" Wall Street Journal

On Friday, July 20, James Holmes allegedly opened fire at a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, Colo., killing 12 people and injuring 58. Shares in Cinemark Holdings, which owned the theater, fell 5.4% that day and 2.1% more on the Monday. Shares of Smith & Wesson Holding, maker of a gun used in the shooting, fell only 1.3% that Friday and rose 0.8% on the Monday. Shares of gun maker Sturm Ruger rose.

Another report on the shooting's impact on the value of the manufacturer. This shows it was widely noted. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"U.S. News: Justices Let Gun Curb Stand --- Supreme Court turns away appeal against an Illinois city's ban on semiautomatic arms" Wall street Journal

The Supreme Court let stand Monday an ordinance banning semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, allowing a Chicago-area suburb to restrict access to weapons similar to those used in last week's attack in California.

...

The case came from Highland Park, Ill., which in 2013 banned possession of semiautomatic pistols and rifles. The ban included versions of the AK-47, AR-15 and Uzi, which it described as "a narrow category of unusually dangerous weapons that have been used in a series of deadly mass shooting events."

The ordinance was challenged by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Arie Friedman, a pediatrician and Republican activist who argued the law unconstitutionally required him to dispose of weaponry he owned.

One of his guns -- a Smith & Wesson M&P semiautomatic rifle -- is the same type of weapon used in the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack where 14 people died and in the 2012 Aurora, Colo., cinema attack that killed 12 people.

In the appeal, Dr. Friedman said "he keeps the Smith & Wesson M & P 15 rifle available for defense of his home and family should the need arise." His attorney, David Thompson, said Monday, "We're disappointed that the court declined to review a gun ban that covers the most popular firearms in America, including those with many safety enhancing features."

This sources shows that the Aurora and San Bernardino shootings are common references when discussing the significance of this rifle. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Gun stores see rush of business after Mass. AG plans to close loophole" Boston Globe[20]

Gun buyers raced to snap up military-style weapons on Wednesday as Attorney General Maura Healey moved to bar the sale of rifles that have been altered slightly to evade the state's assault weapon ban.

...

The stores were responding to an order Healey issued to the state's 350 gun dealers telling them to immediately stop selling "duplicate" versions of common assault rifles like the AR-15, which she argues are illegal under the state's 1998 assault weapons ban.

The law bans duplicate weapons but has left it to gun manufacturers to define which weapons would fall into that category.

...

She described the ban as a response to the use of assault rifles in the mass shootings in Orlando; San Bernardino, Calif,; Aurora, Colo.; and Newtown, Conn., as well the attack that killed three law enforcement officers in Baton Rouge on Sunday.

While not a new law, this source indicates that a law was extended to ban this rifle in part because of its use in two shootings, Aurora ad San Bernardino. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"GUN INDUSTRY WRESTLES WITH SELLER'S REMORSE: A Pinellas pawnshop owner will give up his gun sales in light of the Connecticut shootings. Some national retailers pull back on sales." Tampa Bay Times [21]

Gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., which saw sales this year grow nearly 50 percent over the year before, have seen their stock prices plummet about 15 percent since the [Sandy Hook] shootings. It's not a given that these companies' would stumble after disaster: The firms' shares rose after the shootings at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater in July.

And yet another article discussing the affect of the shooting on the stock price of the manufacturer of the rifle used. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Meet the must-have bling for your gun" Boston Globe [22]

On July 20, 2012, a mass murderer killed 12 and wounded 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., using a Smith & Wesson M&P15. On Dec. 12, 2012, another mass murderer killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., using his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S. The letter and number suffixes belie a simple truth -- the guts of both guns look just like an M-16 or, as it is known for civilian use, an AR-15. OK, the M-16 can fire in fully automatic mode but otherwise, the same.

And yet another story, there are more I haven't posted, that show this rifle is commonly associated with the Aurora shooting. Taken together, they show that the shooting is what the rifle is best known for. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Two gun-makers' stocks jumped after the San Bernardino shooting " Chicago Tribune[23]

Shares of some gun-makers appear to have spiked shortly after news of a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. CNBC's Carl Quintanilla points out that Smith & Wesson's stock jumped roughly 1 percent in the minutes after word of the shooting got out, at around 2 p.m. Eastern. (It's now trading at half a percent below its opening price.)

Another article noting how the manufacturer's valuation was changed by the use of this rifle in a notable crime, this time the San Bernardino shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• It has been opposed by multiple editors. Gain consensus for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Notoriety"

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use: 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,... if its notoriety greatly increased...

We should first agree on the meaning of this aspect of the criteria. This appears to be based on WP:WEIGHT:

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

So the degree of notoriety is based on the quantity (and quality) of sources that connect this rifle to these crimes. In other words, the most frequent references to this rifle in mainstream sources are in reference to these crimes. Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Felsic2: You lose one discussion, getting no support from other editors, and immediately start a new discussion about basically the same thing in order to wear your opponents down. That's disruptive editing, tendentious editing, refusal to respect the opinion of other editors and refusal to drop the stick, and is going to bring you back to WP:ANI pretty soon, if you don't stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We didn't come to an agreement on the other aspect of the criteria. No one won or lost. The entire time we planned on discussing other matters. Do you have any input on this issue? Felsic2 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Again very selective reading. You want to add material but get no support from others here for it, that's what the repeated discussions on this page are all about. Not about reaching an agreement, a compromise or anything else, just a simple case of yes or no. And the result was no. Again. That's losing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. The topic of this thread is the notoriety of this rifle. If there's no disagreement on the interpretation of the criteria I'll start adding sources as evidence. Felsic2 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We have just finished one discussion where you posted a number of sources that didn't convince anyone, so what on earth makes you believe that posting them again in a new section is going to convince anyone? Come back 6-12 months from now and make a new try, not 6-12 minutes after your latest attempt failed, as with this section... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't presented sources yet on the notoriety issue, so the previous discussion is separate and unrelated. Felsic2 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with notoriety, all kinds of weapons are seen as bad in at least some circles, and always have, so there's absolutely no problem finding sources for that, it's about whether the events you want to get into the article directly influenced legislation or not. As you have been told both on this page and on multiple other pages where it has been discussed. If you can provide multiple reliable sources from mainstream media (i.e. not from the outer edges of the spectrum, regardless of which side) supporting that it directly influenced legislation, then there's something to discuss. If you can't, then there isn't. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The legislative thread is above - "December discussion". This thread is about notoriety. Please stay on topic. Felsic2 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is a massive case of WP:IDHT. The material has been rejected by numerous editors. This conversation really is becoming tedious. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No. There hasn't been any discussion of the notoriety of this rifle. You don't need to keep responding to say you're not interested in discussion. Previously you expressed a preference to discuss one issue at a time. So this is the next issue. I'll post a pile of source establishing notoriety and then we can see if there's any disagreement about them. Felsic2 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, you confuse weight and notoriety with "post a pile of source". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what we find. Felsic2 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why not try 3-4 reliable sources that actually say what you claim they say? And maybe you'll find all those editors you say agreed with you along the way. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What I "claim" is that this rifle's use in these two shootings has been reported on more in mainstream sources than anything else about it, establishing that that shootings have increased the rifle's notoriety. That's a WP:WEIGHT argument. See above for the text of that policy. "Prominence" is partly determined by the quality and importance of the sources, and partly by their number. Or, how would you define "prominence"? Felsic2 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• The mention that the rifle was used is not increasing the notoriety. Posting 25 examples of those mentions won't do it either. Unlike the Tec 9, which became a household name that even non-gun people recognize, the term Smith & Wesson M&P15 would like draw a blank stare from most non-gun people. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that frequent negative mentions don't establish notoriety. How are you determining that Tec 9 became a household name as a result of that shooting? Felsic2 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• It became a household name because 1) It was a unique firearm, unlike this one which is merely a variant like 50 other variants and 2) It was actually banned, by name, in legislation on both state and federal levels. Notice the difference? How do I know it was a household name? Because I actually care about firearms outside of wikipedia and talk to real live people face to face about them. Now before you start talking about OR, I'm not using it as a source for any entry into the article, so spare me the useless lecture. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Smith & Wesson M&P15 was little known before these shootings. These shooting are what it is known for. It sounds like there are no ways of knowing what firearms have become household names beyond original research, so that's not a viable standard. Let's just use the existig Wikipedia standard, reflected in WP:WEIGHT. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's still little known. Most people look at it and say "AR15". Since I didn't submit any ORIGINAL RESEARCH, I don't need your observation on OR. In fact, I told you ahead of time that I know it was OR and not being used. That means you are trying to start an issue. You completely ignored the part of the response about legislation actually naming it and instead, wasted my time with a response about something that wasn't being used. Good job. You've shown nothing to satisfy WEIGHT. I'll save some time: I oppose it until you can show it meets the criteria. That means I won't have to say the same thing over and over while you present nothing new. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't gotten started yet with the actual sources. I started this thread with a question about how we interpret notoriety. So far as I can tell your only suggestion is to rely on an unusable "household name" standard. So I am going to revert to the default for all Wikipedia articles - that we include items which have received coverage in prominent sources. Felsic2 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, my suggestion wasn't the part about household name. In fact, I've been very clear that OR wasn't being offered to include anything. Why you're refusing to hear that is baffling. I'm actually getting pretty fed up with your "if you don't satisfy X, I'm going to enter X" behavior. I'd strongly suggest you stop . Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. What is the verifiable standard for notoriety that you think we should use? Felsic2 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• BTW, did you find those editors that support inclusion? Where are they? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the topic of another thread. Please keep on topic. Felsic2 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::*Since you appear to have abandoned that one, I was hoping you'd actually come across with those names. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen any names of editors for or against. Let's stick to discussing notoriety in this thread. Felsic2 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Which part of "Notoriety is irrelevant" was it that you didn't understand? This is not about notoriety, it's about your opponents wanting to stick to a long-standing consensus within the gun-project, making this section a total waste of time and effort... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time anyone has said "Notoriety is irrelevant", so I'm not sure what I was supposed to understand and when. The topic of this thread is notoriety, which is one of the suggested criteria for inclusion endorsed by the gun project. If the consensus there is against using notoriety as a criteria you'll have to show me evidence of it. Felsic2 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Any other views before we start compiling sources to establish notoriety and weight? Felsic2 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe you should ask the 4 who supported you above? (listening to crickets) Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What do they have to do with notoriety? Felsic2 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Because neither notoriety or the 4 invisible editors exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• What has notoriety got to do with your attempt to add unwanted material here? Your proposed addition has been rejected, by real existing editors (unlike the 4 imaginary editors supporting you that you mentioned in the section above, in a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors...), and you have been told multiple times that there's nothing more to discuss until you come up with multiple reliable sources saying that the event you want to add led to new legislation. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, since no one has presented a different view I'm going to compile "multiple reliable sources" discussing the use of this rifle in the two shootings to show that it has gained notoriety. Felsic2 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Noone here cares if it has gained notoriety or not, except you. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone has different interests. So long as you don't delete well-sourced we'll get along fine. Felsic2 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• What are you even talking about? 2 people have presented a different view. What you're now asking is for someone to provide a source saying that it hasn't met the threshold. You want someone else to prove a negative. Niteshift36 (talk)

I'm sorry - I missed where you define "notoriety" or how its determined. Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just make something up. You've already proven that fabricating claims and then acting like they didn't happen is something you're perfectly comfortable doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia articles, "notoriety" may be reasonably interpreted as a form of notability. So the question is: as the notability of this rifle increased as a result of criminal use? Notability is the presence of "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". According to my research, this rifle has only rarely appeared in mainstream publications other than its uses in shootings. Therefore it fulfils WP:GUN. More importantly, WP:WEIGHT, which is policy, says: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. The extent of prominent, reliable sources that discuss this rifle's use in criminal incidents means that those uses belong in this article. For example, here is a list of all mentions of the rifle in three major news sources: Time Magazine, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.

There are over three dozen citations, from just three publications. Only two of them are in reference to non-criminal activity. The notability of this weapon comes chiefly from its association with these three shootings. Compare the prominence of these publications to those currently in use in the article. Those are generally less prominent and less reliable, and are targeted at specialized audiences. Therefore, in keeping with both WP:WEIGHT and WP:GUNS, this article should contain some mention of the three shooting referenced above. Since previous edits and proposals have been rejected by some editors, I'll propose another compromise. The shortest possible reference is: "The M&P15 was used in the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting, and the 2015 San Bernardino attack." Felsic2 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion. Simply noting the specific model number when reporting on the crime doesn't make this rifle notably linked with this crime. Typically the articles only care that the rifle in question is an AR-15 type or other "assault weapon". They aren't dwelling on this rifle or its specific features. Just because the rifle is mentioned by name among the many other details in the article doesn't mean it has weight in this context. A quick web search put several reviews and discussion of this rifle on the first and second pages of the search. Discussion of the crime in question didn't show up in any of the first five pages of my search results. So far a number of editors have opposed inclusion and only one is for it. Perhaps this would be a good one to ask on the Project Firearms talk page. It would help decide if this is what people meant to include or not when they came up with the guidelines in question. Springee (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If repeatedly noting the use of this weapon in these crimes does not establish it's use "notably" then what does? In fact, articles o beyond simply noting the model number. In some cases they describe the how the gun was acquired and even attempts to modify it. As for "reviews", they exist almost exclusively in publications oriented towards gun enthusiasts, a niche group. Wikipedia articles should reflect what the most prominent sources say about a topic, not just "fan magazines". Further, this article includes listings under "official users" in which the sources merely list the model name. Do you support that material and if so why isn't that a double standard? Felsic2 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Mentioning a model doesn't make it notable, nor is it significant coverage. Once again, you try to cobble together a lot of superficial mentions and try to add it up to significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Above, you wrote "If 100 sources covered an earthquake and a single one of them said it was the most devastating earthquake ever, we probably wouldn't label it as the worst earthquake ever." The corollary is that if 100 sources say something then we should mention it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, that's not the corollary. Do you honestly not understand the difference between a mention and significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Notoriety does not require significant coverage, just a large volume of coverage. Readers of the Los Angeles Times, to give one example, have been told 17 times that this rifle was used in the LAX shooting. That's easily sufficient to make it a "household name". I can keep adding more sources to show that there are numerous news accounts tying this rifle to notable criminal uses. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Notoriety does require more than mere mentions. There is no evidence that the name of this firearm is a "household name" because it was mentioned a few times. Whereas I provided an example (The Tec-9) that did actually achieve notoriety, you've shown nothing but mentions. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I started this thread asking for a good definition of "notoriety". Frequent mentions appear to meet that definition. As for Tec-9, wich is given as an example in the WP:GUNS criteria, there's no source currently in that article that directly calls it a "household name". That definition appears to be your invention. As for mere "mentions", there are entire articles about the use of this rifle in various shootings. I'm beginning to quote text from some of the "significant coverage" below. Felsic2 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Thank you for your prodigious research. The sources are reliable. The weight of reliable sources is overwhelming. Our policy of due weight compels inclusion of the noteworthy role of the subject of this article in the noteworthy historical events. The proposed content summarizes reliable sources. Exclusion of the proposed content is grossly non-neutral. 35.165.116.166 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)— 35.165.116.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above is suspected of being a sock of HughD. The editor no longer is no longer blocked but if this is considered to be related to post 1932 US politics then it would be a violation of his topic ban. Springee (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make an issue of it then go to WP:AE or WP:ANI. It looks like your postings at WP:SOCK haven't achieved a conclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient efforts to address the neutrality and completeness deficiencies of this article. The above offered advice on this talk page from our colleague offers a way forward:

Non-withstanding the suggestion on the WikiProject, both the Aurora shooting and the San Bernardino shooting are notable enough for inclusion. If there is disagreement, an RFC may be the best way to go. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The above-proposed "shortest possible" compromise summary of numerous noteworthy reliable sources:

The M&P15 was used in the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting, and the 2015 San Bernardino attack.

... is ripe for a more formal request for comment. For purposes of an RfC, suggest nine of the strongest citations, drawn from the above compiled list in this thread capped as "Extended content", from Time, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, three citations for each incident, as due weight is an issue with some editors. The arguments in opposition to this proposed content on this talk page ("mentions", "POV push", "local project due weight policy", etc.) will not stand up to broader scrutiny from experienced editors. Getting the incidents in will in turn facilitate further progress on neutrality and completeness in terms of summarizing reliable sources on the impact of the incidents on sales, the stock price, legislation, and other noteworthy aspects of this subject. Thank you again. 52.56.140.99 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)— 52.56.140.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

POV reference packing?

These recent edits seem to be an effort to coatrack references. [[24]], [[25]]. While production volumes is likely something that should fit in the article, the sources for the numbers are probably not reliable for the facts in question and more significantly, extremely biased and political in nature. Consensus has been against including discussions of crimes in the article so linking facts to articles that discuss the subject is a back door way to include the information, especially since much of the rise in production was due to fear of a new assault weapons ban. HP does offer a clue as to where their data comes from, ATF, production reports [[26]] (2006 data on pg 12[[27]], 2008 pg13 [[28]], 2010 pg 19[[29]]) I would suggest that we replace the references with links to the government data to avoid coatracking and to respect editor consensus. Springee (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would agree. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:COATRACK which would concern that edit. Could you please quote the part of that essay you're worried about? You might be misinterpreting it.

Certainly, let's use the best available sources. I don't see the exact info on the M&P15 in those links. In general, secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. However we could add more info, something like "Different figures appear n ATF reports, which say that..." Felsic2 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

S&W returned to the rifle market in 2006. The M&P15 is the only rifle (family) they make. Coatrack applies here though it appears you want to wikilawyer the issue. It's clear the production volume material was added as a "hook" on which to hang articles/references which aren't about production but instead about crimes and shootings, materialwhich you have been trying to add to the article against consensus. Perhaps the best compromise would be to keep the basic information but change the references to the ATF information along with a source noting the M&P is the only family of rifles S&W manufactured during this time. You get the material you say wanted and there is no question of coatracking. It's a win-win. Springee (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see what this material has to do with "coatracking", since it's directly and intimately related to the topic. I don't object to adding material, but I do object to deleting material with a good source. Drawing conclusions from primary sources is a violation of WP:NOR. But using a primary source to add detail to what's found in a secondary source is allowable, so far as I know. More is better. Felsic2 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• If we can use a source that is mainly neutral (such as the BATFE),I see that as preferable than using a source where a person has to read through some POV material to find the facts. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the citations in this article come from "POV sources". The NRA certainly isn't a neutral source. What matters is whether or not they are reliable. Sales figures isn't "POV material". Felsic2 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is where you usually say "this thread is about the manufacturing numbers sources. If you want to talk about other sources, start another discussion". You're right, sales figures aren't POV material. It's the material surrounding them in the source that is POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Felsic2, discussions like this are why several editors have criticized your edits to firearms related articles and suggested POV pushing. It should be clear that consensus is against including discussions of mass shootings/crimes in this article. You want to include such information. Coatracking of articles occurs when someone uses the nominal subject of an article to try to push material that is related but not within the scope of the article. The primary article becomes the hook on which to hang the side subject. Adding long anti-assault weapons quotes to this article would clearly be a coatrack issue. Adding the primary content of the HP and Vox articles to this article would also be coatracking. What you are trying to do is more subtle but the intent is the same. You are trying to claim it isn't coatrack because the content you added to the article is in and of itself innocuous. However, you are still going against consensus and trying to link material you want into the article just in a less direct way. I've shown how we can include the exact same article content without a hint of coatracking and now you are protesting. In what way could it possibly harm the article to include the ATF sources and a source clearly stating the M&P15 is the only rifle family S&W makes vs including your references? The only reason to protest is if you actually want to use a back door lead the readers to sources that discuss what you weren't able to include through normal consensus. Springee (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following how WP policies applies to this situation. It sounds like you're saying that there's a 'gag order' preventing the citation of any source for which mentions a criminal use. If that's the intent, then that's pretty extreme. Virtually all of the mainstream publications that have written about this firearm have mentioned its criminal use, so such a rule would mean excluding what are usually considered the most reliable sources for an article.

Since no one is contesting the actual content, and this is just about which sources to use, I'll ask for input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Felsic2 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not only are you not listening to this discussion, you misrepresented the issue at RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that the RSN discussion doesn't properly represent the issue here. Felsic2, you haven't offered a good reason why we shouldn't use the more direct source for production data. I propose switching the references to the ATF sources and moving on. Springee (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what the uninvolved editors at the noticeboard say. Felsic2 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Since you feel the ATF is a primary source, let's use a secondary source, Shooting Industry.com [[30]]. Again, if your only concern is primary vs secondary source (if we want to call the ATF vs the manufactures the primary source) then this source should be fine and again avoid the issue at hand. Springee (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to adding more sources. But I don't see the same issues being covered in the Shooting Industry article. FWIW, I assume that's what could be described as a "biased source". Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

What issue? All you are citing is production values. The RS discussion you started said the ATF numbers would be a better source for such information. Springee (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

1) The secondary sources specifically highlight the growth in sales of the M&P15, the subject of this article. With primary sources, there's a problem of deciding which data points to include. 2) The ATF and Shooting Industry publications don't mention the M&P15. We can only infer, via synthesis and interpretation, that they refer to this rifle. 3) For those and other reasons, the use of primary sources is discouraged. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Felsic2 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments aren't convincing. Let's go in the other direction, what content do you want to add to the article? After that we can figure out what sources to use. We agree on sales volumes. We can use business news articles to highlight the importance of the rifles to S&W's bottom line. As the article stands the "sales growth" doesn't need to be highlighted as it's almost all clear from the numbers. If we say yesterday was 45 degrees and today is 55 we don't need an opinion article to tell the reader today is 10 degrees warmer. Your argument about inferring also grasping. The only rifles S&W sells are the M&P15 family. The level of "inference" you are claiming is again just an excuse to keep your POV sources (which are murky in terms of stating where their data comes from). This also applies to your comment about "other reasons". Again, it's hard to believe you are fighting this much if your intent were only to add sales volume. You have shown that adding crime material to articles is something you [WP:PUSH] for (ie adding DC sniper material to the Caprice article, reverting the removal of weak link between Gander Mountain and the Aurora [[31]]). You don't have consensus for your change. Please drop the stick. Springee (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your methodology. I don't think it's a good practice to decide what an article should contain and then search for sources to support that content. A better practice to do the opposite: review reliable sources and summarize what they say.

This article isn't about the "M&P15 family". See Smith & Wesson M&P10 and Smith & Wesson M&P15-22 for other rifles produced by Smith & Wesson.

It'd be helpful if you could follow the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, which says Comment on content, not on the contributor. Felsic2 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Again you are evading questions. I didn't suggest we write an entire article by stating what we want then finding the facts. Instead I'm asking what information you wanted to add with those two references. You seem to have drifted from a discussion of purely numbers to now some sort of wow factor regarding sales volume growth. Your comment about the M&P15 family is yet another attempt to distract. The numbers presented by your sources suggest they looked at all versions of the M&P15 rifle. S&W considers all to be M&P-15 rifles. The article states, "with variants in .22 Long Rifle and 5.45×39mm". As for commenting, well I'm commenting on the method in which content is being pushed. I would suggest you read WP:PUSH. Anyway, this conversation has become pointless. You don't have consensus and going round and round won't help you get it. Springee (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The information I want to add from those sources is the information I added from those sources. What's unclear about that?

"S&W considers all to be M&P-15 rifles. " - what the source for that?

Are you suggesting merging all S&W rifle articles into this one so that we can use those primary sources? If not, then we should be careful about using references that refer to all S&W rifles for an article that's just about some S&W rifles.

Source that talk about S&W's overall rifle sales probably belong in the Smith and Wesson article. Two sources that talk about Smith & Wesson M&P15 sales belong in the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article. That's pretty simple. 19:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Again you are avoiding the question. It appears that what you wanted to add was information about sales volume. Did you really think it was necessary to state the relative sales volumes (ie tripled etc)? Since you refuse to answer the current question, how about this one, if we find an article that provides the exact same information yet doesn't contain any gun politics (ie a Business Times article that gives the volumes and notes the growth) are you going to protest a change in the references? Springee (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm answering your question. I didn't say that the sales tripled. The source said it. There's no prohibition on source mentioning gun politics, just like there's no prohibition on sources subsidized by the manufacturer. Felsic2 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You did answer the question but not directly. Had you said you were indifferent so long as the source was reliable for the claims you added to the article then we could conclude your intent was only to include the material actually in the article. Instead you deflected the question (yet again) and made it clear you are trying to WP:PUSH a POV by linking highly POV references. Springee (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• BATFE is a secondary source. The company would be the primary source. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an issue best determined at the noticeboard. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'll be interested in seeing if you listen to the outcome there. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion was archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 219#Vox.com and Huffington Post at Smith & Wesson M&P15. I don't see where any of the outside editors agreed that the Huffington Post and Vox.com sources are too biased to use for this information. Could someone quote the posting that endorses the deletion of them? Felsic2 (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Other editors agreed that the ATF source was perfectly reasonable and valid. So the question goes to you: Having switched out the sources, has the article lost any information? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So there's no objection to adding those sources as well? Felsic2 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you didn't read any of the above. Given we have reliable, neutral sources there is no reason to add POV sources. Springee (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you consider Guns and Ammo to be a neutral source? It appears rather promotional to me. Felsic2 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• A source doesn't have to be neutral, but Guns and Ammo is a well read, long standing, publication in the industry. It is independent of the manufacturers. So while the tone may sound enthusiastic, it's not biased. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Felsic2, I'm not sure what your concern is. You wanted to add production data to the article. That material has been added. Springee (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Exactly. If you have a separate gripe about a separate source being used to source something else, please discuss that. There are articles about fishing if you are attracted to that. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any objections to the VOX and HP sources expressed at RSN. They are also well read, reliable publications. They can supplement the added sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't read what was stated at RSN then. They are reliable but not the best sources for the information. They are now 100% redundant and the only reason to add them would be to push a POV into the article via the citations. The reliability of the HP and VOX with respect to political topics such as firearms is also not established. Anyway, I think it's time to let this one drop. You said you wanted production stats in the article and we got them. Springee (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

They are sufficiently reliable and no more biased than industry publications. If you're going to rely on RSN for their deletion could you please quote whichever editor you believe endorsed that POV? Felsic2 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You said your only intent was to include production numbers. That information is now included. Springee (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I said that.

The Guns and Ammo source doesn't say "In 2013 Smith and Wesson added a second rifle, the M&P 10.[8]" It says that the M&P10 line was expanded to add a new calibre. I'll move it to the M&P10 article.

The ATF site doesn't report M&P15 production. It reports all rifle production. So it should be amended to clarify that fact.

The S&W annual report doesn't say that the M&P 15 was "the only rifle offering through 2012". It says that the rifle was introduced in 2006.

We should be summarizing what these sources actually say, not creating new conclusions based on our assumptions. Felsic2 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The references more than support the claims. Your edits don't improve the article but aren't worth fighting over. Let's leave things where they stand. Springee (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I refer you again to WP:SYNTH. Felsic2 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, we had citations that were more than sufficient to support the material you claimed you wanted. Your protests can only be taken as proof that you were trying to use a backdoor method to get around both article and project consensus. Springee (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the sources you're citing. Neither of them seem to say what you're claiming. Maybe it's a case of "POV reference packing", using promotional sources. Felsic2 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The article lists production numbers for 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012? Who picked those dates and why? Felsic2 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• T/C rifles have a separate listing in the ATF report and are not part of the numbers listed. The years were picked as they spanned the years included in the disputed references and every two years seemed reasonable. Note 2013 sales would include M&P10 rifles. Springee (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually read the WP:SYNTH policy? Apparently not. Let me quote the beginning of it, so we're all on the same page:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

That's exactly what this material does - combine multiple sources to reach a conclusion that doesn't appear in any of them. Felsic2 (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Is the data incorrect. Yes or no. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No one has shown that the Huffington Post and Vox.com sources have incorrect data. Since their use would not violate any core content policies, unlike the conglomeration of sources used replace them, they should be returned to the article. Otherwise, it appears that they were deleted for purely POV reasons. Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, they were deleted for reasons already stated. Now how about if you answer my question? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What policy reasons mandated their removal? I haven't seen them. So instead of using acceptable secondary sources for this information editors have instead used an assemblage of primary sources to create a 'synthesized' conclusion, in violation of WP:NOR. Ironically, the same editor who added it has reverted an addition to another article saying "... evidence is based on WP:SYN and/or WP:OR". So the most important question is whether we're allowed to violate Wikipedia content articles on this page? If not, let's go back to the earlier content and sources. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• There's no consensus for it. You're the only one fighting for it. The current sources don't provide inaccurate info. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you know what's accurate or inaccurate?

The material as constructed violates WP:NOR, and neither editor is disputing that. Local consensus cannot override site-wide policies. Felsic2 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Prove it's not accurate. It doesn't conflict with the opinion heavy sources you wanted to use. No, they don't violate NOR. Build a consensus to change or move along. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Prove Vox and HuffingtonPost aren't accurate. (Or see WP:BURDEN - which is on the editors supporting this material. It says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. None of the sources directly support the contribution.)

I don't see how you can claim that this material does not violate WP:NOR. None of the sources individually contain the claim. Instead they are compiled in such a way as to make the claim through addition and subtraction. Would it be better if I ask for outside input on this issue? Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Vox and Huffpo weren't removed because they weren't accurate. They were removed because people had to wade for a bunch of POV just to get what the other sources can provide. Please pay attention. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no requirement that otherwise reliable source can't have POVs on topics. The content added to the article based on those sources was neutral. The only reason they were deleted is that a few editors found certain POVs objectionable, and replaced them with sources that have the opposite POV. That was not neutral editing. Thus, the edits violated tow content policies: NPOV and NOR. Felsic2 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I am not convinced this article meets the requirements of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants to even have its own article. From looking at the sources of the article, it does not appear this model meets general notability requirements. Before I submit this article to WP:AfD and/or propose it be merged with AR-15 variants, I offer those who think this article should stick around to provide WP:RS that demonstrates that it meets notability requirements. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• How can you argue that the sources give enough coverage to criminal uses to include those items, but not enough coverage to be notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources seem to me to justify the sentence in the article. They all look like good WP:RS and the quotes cite the gun specifically. Coming to the talk page, I had assumed the gun had already passed notability--until I looked today at the article references and was shocked at the lack of any real WP:RS. I think an argument can be made the gun is notable using the articles about the gun's use in the mass shootings. But if you exclude all those articles--as it appears you wish and a number of others wish to do--I don't see how the gun is notable enough to have its own article. I don't see how it would pass WP:AfD without those articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that it seems odd that you are both arguing that this isn't a notable topic and that it should be expanded to include general AR-15 crime material. Anyway, as for the claim of notability, it should meet the criteria set out by the Project Firearms page. Smith and Wesson is a major manufacture in the field and this was for a time their sole line of rifles. I can see how AR-15 pattern rifles could raise your concern but I do think this is a notable rifle family even though it's clearly based on the Stoner design. Springee (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Suspect WP:AfD will result in a broader userbase commenting as well. PriceDL (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep tend to agree that this seems a fair point. Is it really notable. It is not unreasonable for someone who has not looked at sources to come to the conclusion it is just a variant of the AR-15. But the timing can also seem to be odd and looks like it is linked to the above thread about use in crime.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong disagree, given that it is a variant independently manufactured by a major manufacturer, and may be the most popular variant of AR-15 design in the United States right now. So while the design is the same, the development history, manufacturing, etc. is not. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How is this AR-15 significantly different from any other AR-15? What development process was involved in copying an expired patent? Felsic2 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it's mentioned in reliable sources as being distinct. Also, as I read it, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants part is talking about stuff like changing the barrel length or finish on an existing design from an existing manufacturer, not about the firearm in question being made by an entirely different manufacturer. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Our project's most respected sources are in agreement that the historic criminal use is a noteworthy aspect of the subject of this article. Considering the breadth of coverage of the subject of this article in noteworthy reliable sources, by far the single most prominent aspect is the relationship between the subject of this article and the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting, and the 2015 San Bernardino attack. The historic criminal use is supported much better than anything currently in the article. Exclusion of this noteworthy content is frustrating accurate assessment of the subject's general notability. In addition, the systematic exclusion of the vast noteworthy reliable sources that mention the historic criminal use is further obscuring notability. 13.124.3.28 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)— 13.124.3.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The fact that you think mentions have bearing on notability tells me what I need to know. Notability is determined by significant coverage, not mere mentions. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: has a good point, in general. Many firearms are simply clones of common designs. They may have been reviewed in gun magazines, but they aren't unique or notable in the broader world. Taking the case of this gun, its sole appearances in general interest publications, such as newspapers and news magazines, has been its use in notable mass shootings. So either this article should include that source of notability, or the article should be deleted. Felsic2 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use

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 following content be added to the article?

The Smith & Wesson M&P15 was used in the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting, and the 2015 San Bernardino attack.

References

52.56.171.93 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)— 52.56.171.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Survey

• Support as proposer. The proposed content is noteworthy WP:DUE; numerous additional references are available in reliable sources, see above on this talk page, especially sections "Notoriety" and Significant coverage. Inclusion is required as per our project pillar WP:NPOV. Currently, the article is non-neutral in that it includes no instances of criminal use. The proposed content is verifiable WP:V. The proposed sources are highly reliable WP:RS. The proposed content is a reasonable, simple, neutral summary of the sources. The inclusion of the proposed content is an improvement to the article. 52.56.171.93 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)— 52.56.171.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment of blocked user— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This Amazon editor is likely a sock of user HughD. I've presented evidence on @The Wordsmith:'s talk page [[32]]. HughD is blocked from involvement in post 1932 US politics. Given the political nature of gun discussions this RfC is a violation of that block. This is the same editor who recently has been tagging the GM article with an inadequate lead tag. When asked why he felt it was inadequate, the reply was gibberish [[33]]. Springee (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The allegations of sockpuppetry have not been accepted by checkusers. Guns and shootings are not politics. Remember to discuss the content, not the contributors. See WP:TPG. Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If it was just a case of a random, non-problematic IP editor why block it? The Wordsmith took action after I made a case (that was not initially made at the SPI because solid the evidence didn't exist at the time) including a number of similar edit patterns, statements etc. This RfC fits the common HughD format as illustrated in these RfCs[[34]], [[35]], [[36]], [[37]], [[38]], [[39]]. Springee (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wordsmith felt the evidence that HughD has been IP editing was convincing [[40]]. Springee (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Amazing that an IP who never edited anywhere in Wikipedia drops in and immediately starts a RfC. Smells pretty fishy. This matter has been debated ad naseum. There has been no consensus to add it and plenty against it. Put the whip down, the pony is dead. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks like someone is switching to socking through their IP address. Wonder who that could be. Hmmmm? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The material is factually correct, well-supported by numerous reliable sources (only a fraction of which are included here) and relevant to the notability of the subject. The WP:WEIGHT section of the NPOV policy says that all significant points of view should be included, and the POV that this weapon is commonly associated with certain high-profile crimes should not be excluded simply because some editors don't like the facts. It is typical for Wikipedia articles to include information on how commercial products and inventions are put to use. That includes weapons, poisons, explosives, and other lethal objects. The proposed text is short and neutral. The objections above are based entirely on the alleged person making the proposal, which is not consistent with talk page guidelines. In conclusion, this is a notable fact about the Smith & Wesson M&P15 that belongs in the article. Felsic2 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above oppose votes, but also because it's really irrelevant. We don't list what type of car someone drives when he crashes. This is just a bias push and is unacceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Felsic2 and PriceDL and Fyddlestix. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (updated). See also this WP:RS

"UPDATE: After this story was published, officials specified that the guns used in the Orlando shooting were a Sig Sauer MCX ", so this sources says that an SIG Sauer MCX (not an M&P 15, or an AR-15) was used in the Orlando shooting, So not sure this is really making the case that AR-15 derivatives are the weapon of choice very well. Also, this would be a source for the AR-15 being the weapon of choice anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have heard plenty on concerns about the AR-15 variant before I came to this RfC. So it's not surprising that there are numerous articles calling it the "weapon of choice" of mass shooters: in addition to the above: pbs, Rolling Stone, Denver Post, Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, Vox, NBC News, Daily KOS, U.K. Telegraph, Huffington Post, the Economist, NPR, CNBC, Guardian, L.A. Times, Mother Jones.... I wasn't even done with the Google Results when I stopped here. It's so widely covered. Since the this particular gun is of the AR-15 type, this aspect which is so widely covered in the media should be included as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you're trying to take coverage of the AR15 and apply it to an article about a specific model. Your reasoning might hold water at the article about AR-15's, but this isn't it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Since it is an AR-15 variant, the significant attributes of the AR-15 variant follow it. If you can identify a policy (not specific to firearms) that says it is not appropriate to include any significant attributes of a category for which a specific item of that category falls into, please do. Otherwise, I think it is common sense that those attributes are reasonable to include. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would there be a policy? Based on your reasoning, we'd talk about the Ford Pinto blowing up in an article about the Corvette because both are cars that share common characteristics like 4 wheels, a gas motor mounted up front and a windshield. There's no policy preventing that either. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants and it appears to that this problem can be solved by placing the article under AR-15 variants, since I do not believe this model is sufficiently notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The CNN article illustrates what's wrong with inclusion in so many cases. The article isn't about any particular rifle (ie not the M&P 15) but about AR pattern rifles genetically and their use in crimes. The material is well suited for inclusion in the general AR15 wiki article and in various gun crime articles. It's not suitable for inclusion in this article since at best it only obliquely mentions the M&P 15. Articles such as that CNN peace are about gun politics and gun crime and in almost all cases should be confined to those areas. This is a consensus that has been expressed by the firearms project page. Springee (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not surprised such a decision was made on the Firearm project page. If the the Firearm project is primarily populated by gun aficionados--which I suspect it is--I think there would be a bias against including any negative coverage about guns (and especially against positions that advocate restricting gun rights). I would like to see if the wider audience of Wikipedia editors agrees. Was this position an WP:RfC. If so, can you point to it? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad you could comment on the intentions of editors you haven't discussed this with. Looks a bit like some bias of your own. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Felsic2. Additionally, in response to Sir Joseph, we do list accidents and incidents involving planes as on Boeing 747. I believe this is similar as the events are highly notable and the mechanism of injury is a major aspect of the events. PriceDL (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I did't mention planes. And planes are different, how many of accidents are there with planes? And furthermore, when there is an accident, it's often enough the plane itself is the story. You can't compare guns to planes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You can't compare guns to cars. PriceDL (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The plane crash example is flawed. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The car crash example is flawed. PriceDL (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So? Using one flawed example to "disprove" another flawed example isn't progress. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

My argument is incomplete due to a lack of time but I don't believe it is flawed. I wrote that to highlight that your comment failed to add anything to the discussion. The analogies are significantly different because plane crashes are generally deemed to be newsworthy events and car crashes are not. PriceDL (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And I'm highlighting that your flawed comment doesn't add anything to the discussion either. Comparing apples and oranges rarely does add much. It's not simply the newsworthiness of an event that determines the inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been discussed repeatedly and rejected for several reasons. First, per project firearms guidelines only in the most notable cases would a crime committed with a gun be mentioned in the gun article [[41]]. The project page realized the potential to flood every article about a particular firearm with mentions of any crime that happens to have been committed with that gun. You risk imbalanced articles such as the one about Gander Mountain where one of the four subsections is about a legally purchased gun used in a notable crime [[42]].. External articles about the crime that mention the gun have been shown but not external articles about the gun. Thus we don't have examples of non-wikipediab editors feeling that it was significant to the history of the M&P15 that it was used in X crimes. The external news articles mention the gun the same way they might mention a fast car in an article about someone driving recklessly fast. Some wiki articles about guns do mention the crimes committed with said gun. Per WP:OSE that doesn't mean those pages are correct or good examples. Conversely, there are examples where consensus has rejected mention of a famous crime in a product article. Here are three recent RfCs that made it clear that just because item/event A had a notable impact on B (notable in context of event B) that doesn't mean that B is notable in context of A. We have two examples of vehicles used in highly notable crimes not being included in the vehicle articles [[43]] and an example of a mudslide [[44]]. In the automotive cases it was decided it wasn't significant in the Ford truck article to mention that a Ford F700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing. It was also decided that it wasn't significant in the Chevy Caprice article to mention the DC Area Sniper Attacks. In the Oso Mudslide case a homicide related to the mudslide was deemed not notable to the mudslide article. Conversely, in a case where a very specific design feature was critical to a crime then it mention may be justified. The Boeing 727's rear door was critical to DB Cooper's crime and the door was changed because of it [[45]]. OJ Simpson and the white Ford Bronco where the notoriety reaches pop culture status and thus OJ is in the Bronco article. As editors we really need to distinguish between a case where a car/gun/item was either uniquely critical to a notable event (727 rear door) or via pop culture because inextricably associated (white Bronco) vs a case where the event is notable but items used in the event are not unique and were selected because they were at hand vs uniquely critical. Notability of A with respect to B doesn't imply a reciprocal relationship. (Just as my kindergarten crush :D ) Springee (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OFFTOPIC as to which article the cites belong to. A cites about San Bernadino belongs to that article. It's a fine point, but this is a fact about the attack, not a fact about the gun. Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use, it says it all. This gun did not become more famous, notorious or regulated due to these instances, so including them is WP:UNDUE. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes -- Of course it should. Damotclese (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why exiting consensus both at this article and in the wider project be ignored? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support some mention of this and other AR-15 type weapons' use in mass shootings, since a large number and variety of reliable sources have commented on that: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Seems pretty clear-cut that if RS discuss it this much, wikipedia should at least mention that aspect of its use/history. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about Ar-15 type rifles. This article is about a SPECIFIC make and model. The first source you list never mentions this rifle. The second one merely says that Smith and Wesson makes one. The third source doesn't mention this one. Neither does the fourth. The fifth merely mentions that a specific union got rid of S&W stock. The sixth says that S&W makes one. Seventh doesn't mention this rifle or the company. The last one is the sole source that actually mentions this rifle, saying it was one of several weapons used. So you posted 8 sources and only 1 actually even mentions this specific firearm. Do you actually understand the question at hand? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I do. And I stand by my vote. Now I have a question for you: do you understand that civility is required and that it's not acceptable to browbeat everyone who disagrees with you in attempt to shape the outcome of the RFC? You feel strongly about this, we get it. Now it's time to let uninvolved editors have their say. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't uncivil. I asked if you understood the question. There's good reason to ask it. You are voting on an article about a specific model of a rifle made by a specific company. You offer, as "proof", 8 sources. Only 1 of them even mentions this specific rifle. 3 mention the company name and the rest don't mention this at all. So it begs the question: Do you understand what is being discussed? Offering "sources" that don't support the topic is not only not helpful, it's actually a bit rude. Some would even argue dishonest. So stand by your vote if you want. It's not uncivil or improper for me to point out that your sources are, for the most part, completely irrelevant to the discussion. Nor is it improper or uncivil to save people from wasting time reading your snowstorm of irrelevant sources by summarizing them for easy use. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

OK whatever. I stand by my !vote and have no interest in an extended back-and-forth with you. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Richard-of-Earth PackMecEng (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support based on the news accounts. If the current gudielines don't include inclusion of this material with the evidence given, the larger community needs a role, because their effect is much too restrictive. This isn't one of my special fields, so I'm commenting just as a general editor and reader. The material is pertinent and not derogatory. In any normal situation at WP this material would be accepted unquestionably, but I'm not going to get involved in further discussion. The best decision here will in fact be from previously uninvolved editors without preconceptions. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if you strip out the references that are either passing mentions or that don't even mention this rifle at all, it's a different story. Most of the references being thrown around here are about the AR-15 in general, which is a different article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If it shares the characteristics of other manufacturers of the weapon, it is appropriate to include the information. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting position. So, based on that notion, it would be ok to put information about a C-130 in the article about the C-47 because both have the common characteristics of being a multi-engine, propeller driven, cargo plane used by the US military. That doesn't seem logical.

It would make sense to include general information about AR-15 rifles, such as the well known problems with the fouling of the action, or the suitability of the calibre for deer hunting. We already include the same GIF animations that appear in many other AR-15 articles. Felsic2 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that we're not talking about general information, are we? We're talking about sources that talk about criminal use of a broad type and trying to shoehorn it into an article about a very specific model. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above oppose votes. I believe it is irrelevant. Reb1981 (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support A simple, well-sourced mention of historically notable uses of the article's subject is evidently appropriate in the encyclopedia. (By the way, the alleged or real sockpuppetry issue is entirely irrelevant. We are explicitly supposed to comment on content and not on the contributor. We must keep discussions focused upon the topic rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the RfC.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Except when the sockpuppetry is done specifically in trying to tip the balance of opinion by appearing to be additional unrelated editors expressing their views. Putting one's thumb on the scale of the RfC by appearing to be multiple editors through sock puppets is not how an RfC is supposed to work. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

He only "voted" once. There's no need to harp on the identity of the editor, who isn't even banned. Let's focus on the content issue. Felsic2 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta Indeed, "alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists" per the relevant rule. However, the alleged sock puppet account only voted once, while the RfC itself is not invalidated in any way by this since the vote has already been stricken. -The Gnome (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Summoned by bot. This strikes me as similar to the Chevrolet Caprice discussion related to the DC Sniper attacks, a discussion which I now can't find. My thoughts on this are that the weapon (or in that case auto) of choice is notable if it was expressly selected for some unique feature, and that the crime wouldn't have been possible with a different brand of auto or weapon. You wouldn't mention the type of ax in the Lizzie Bordon article - any ax would likely have sufficed. I don't know enough about guns to make the call here, but if someone can show coverage that says why it had to be this weapon, and it was selected specifically for that reason, then I'd support a brief mention with that citation. In the DC sniper situation, you could actually make a stronger argument that the .223 Remington article should mention that shooting rather than the Caprice article. Timtempleton (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose not really relevant or noteworthy to the subject or where do you stop if you listed every fatal accident with a weapon it clearly is not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose barring any other source that broadly discusses/critiques the gun as being predominate in a number of high profile shootings, even if these specific examples aren't referenced. Without any source like that, this is a POV statement critical of the gun in WP's voice. We need that broad discussion to establish some high profile crimes to represent that statement. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per logic of Timtempleton and Springee. Fyddlestix raises a different issue, which I would support, comments about a particular weapon becoming notable for particular uses (criminal or otherwise), such content would be usable and useful, but simply adding the names of crimes to weapon/ car/ vehicle pages solely because we know it to be true that they were used doesn't seem to add anything to anyone's understanding. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rifles don't kill, people do. Adding this kind of material to all gun articles, as Felsic2 is trying to do, is all about (US) gun politics, and gun politics should be kept in articles about gun politics. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Note, please, that it is you who's introducing gun politics in this RfC and the respective discussion. This is about whether or not the use of a specific type of gun in notable events can be considered worthy of inclusion in the relevant article. Wikipedia is not a forum for political arguments. If the existence or absence of information from an article seems to some people to indirectly support some political or ideological position this is totally irrelevant and indifferent to Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

He actually has a point. Felsic opposed using factual numbers form a government agency in this article. Instead, he insisted on using sources with a POV. Let's not pretend that there's no politics involved. And, BTW, your piped link to CENSOR is misleading. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) I repeat : It is totally irrelevant and indifferent to Wikipedia if the existence or absence of a particular information seems to some people to indirectly support some political or ideological position. This point is one of the many directions the rule about Wikipedia not being censored takes us. Even if we honestly believe that a particular bit of information in an article promotes this or that ideology or some kind of political position, well, tough! Wikipedia cannot be censored. I hope this is clear now.

(2) There is no "pretending" about anything here. It is irrelevant to the merit of the arguments in an RfC whether or not an editor has broken a Wikipedia rule, tried to introduce politics or behaved improperly. Felsic2 may or may not have some kind of "agenda". In any case, this is irrelevant. The RfC must be decided on the merits of the arguments and on the basis of Wikipedia's rules. End of story. How can this be made any clearer? It seems the discussion keeps drifting to personal behavior, personal opinions, and personal attitudes. -The Gnome (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you repeated yourself for your first point, unfortunately you don't clear anything up in doing so, partially because you still misuse CENSOR. Until you can properly use that basic concept, I can't see a discussion with you about it being productive. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP:CENSOR argument was made as part of the Ford F-700 RfC previously mentioned. As in that previous RfC CENSOR doesn't apply if the WEIGHT of inclusion is the question at hand. Here is what another editor (not involved in this RfC) said as part of the F700 RfC, "Policy WP:NOTCENSORED says it is inappropriate to remove content solely because some people find it offensive for sexual, religious, or similar reasons. It is not "censorship" for someone to argue that the content does not belong in the article for other reasons. "[[54]]. Springee (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:NPOV all viewpoints which includes uses of a subject are presented, legal uses and criminal uses (misuse) of a gun according to weight, as is now done in other existing WP articles on guns, objects and chemicals as noted in the RFC responses. This gun is not exempt from the WP:NPOV policy. The sources presented are reliable and provide the WP:Due Weight justifying the text of criminal uses and use of the gun in the major incidents cited. The article has a balanced NPOV problem now, stating legal users(which is valid) but not including the criminal uses, or sporting et al uses.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal guideline I consider met by the sources, the gun being used in 3 major criminal incidents, plus the guideline is not meant to, and cannot suppress, negate or override WP:NPOV.

The additional sources provided by other editors in the discussion add additional weight to including the text as criminal use of this gun in major incidents:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suspect-charged-with-murder-in-lax-shooting/2013/11/02/20946d66-43fe-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/explosives-removed-from-james-holmess-apartment-and-destroyed-officials-say/2012/07/22/gJQAL9XN2W_story.html;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/suspects-in-san-bernadino-shooting-had-a-small-arsenal/2015/12/03/9b5d7b52-99db-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/;

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-lets-stand-highland-park-ill-gun-law-1449500838;

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579174283262127454.

CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. as I agree with most opposition editors that linking this variant to specific shootings goes overboard, however, to use the car analogy, most articles about car accidents at least say that a car was involved, and I would not be opposed to a sentence saying that this is an AR15 variant, and that AR15's and their many variants, are a popular choice in public shootings. I have to say, as a reader of articles, I am usually interested in what type of firearm a shooter used, and the AR15 series, along with its variants, does hold notoriety in this regard. StarHOG (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The factoid belongs to the shooting article, not vice versa, per WP:UNDUE/WP:TRIVIA: the refs cited (at least some of them I checked) just mention the gun, i.e., do not contribute significant info about the gun. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I understand WP:UNDUE, if there are articles about the firearm that mention its use in a particular shooting, then the corresponding Wikipedia article should mention it. Conversely, if there are articles about the shooting that mention the firearm used, then that information belongs in the page on that shooting. So if we had a reliable source called "Everything you need to know about the Smith & Wesson M&P15" by an expert author, and it included its use in a particular incident, then Wikipedia should mention it as well, with the same amount of weight. I haven't seen any articles about the firearm that mention its use, so until then I continue to oppose its inclusion in this article. Mentions of the firearm used in a particular shooting belong in the page on that shooting. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• My objection isn't based on "who" (I'll pretend like it's not a sock) proposed it. My objection is based on the fact that it is the exact argument Felsic has put forth before, failed to garner support for and that has been rejected by numerous editors. Over and over. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This is an RFC, a fresh discussion meant to get outside views. If you don't have any arguments to make here and now then that's fine.

I have deleted attacks on the poster of the RFC, which do not belong on a talk page. Please use AN or another venue to pursue personal complaints. Previous allegations about the IP have been ignored or dismissed by admins and checkusers. Felsic2 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

First, it wasn't an actual RfC, it was a draft. Second, I have arguments to make. I made them referring to the ones that have been made AT LENGTH. There is no reason to type out a dozen long responses because some sockpuppet wants to say the say stuff over. You seem to believe that just because a question gets asked again, everything resets to zero. Wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's an RFC now. Make your best case to the community. Felsic2 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's already been made. Repeatedly. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• A couple of questions.

1, Why is the suggested edit relevant, is it really more common or associated with mass shootings?

2, Have we this kind of information on many other firearms pages?

Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Murders and accidental deaths, are mentioned in many articles about weapons, explosives, etc., including: Polonium, Black Talon, Ice axe, Derringer, Gelignite, Colt Cobra, British Bull Dog revolver, M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless, Bolo knife, FIM-92 Stinger, Cyanide poisoning, MP_40#Copies_and_post-war_usage, Pressure cooking, Improvised firearm, ANFO (Note these edits and summaries: [55][56][57]), and many more. If these article can mention deadly uses, why not this one?

Non-fatal uses, including sports or famous owners, are commonly reported as well, including: Walther Olympia, Benelli MP 90S, 9×25mm Dillon, TT pistol, .500 S&W Magnum, Ruger LCP, Ruger Alaskan, Ruger Redhawk, Smith & Wesson Model 36, Tranter (revolver), and many more. If it's OK to mention non-criminal uses, then why not criminal ones?

This is not an exceptional usage. It is normal and typical to cross-reference topics. It's called "building the web". It's common Wikipedia editing.

A couple of recent RFCs have endorsed inclusion of this type of information in articles. See #RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? and Talk:Ruger Mini-14# Rfc: Add major incidents to article?. Felsic2 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but these are not the same things, we are talking in the other articles about notable users or historically important crimes, not mass shootings (where I can find such references anyway), or where criminal was significant (as in the BAR). Is there any evidence that the use of the M&P15 is used in an unusual number of crimes (as the BAR) or has been used to shoot a notable personage (as the Colt Cobra), or was used by a notable Person (as with the Colt model 1903), or was the subject of a court case (as in the black Talon Ammunition). I am not seeing the use of the M&P 15 as being that "outstanding".Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

These are historically important crimes. Laws have been changed because of them. Felsic2 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Except what you have to show here is that laws were changed because of this particular firearm. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, this doesnt' seem like gibberish at all, but a fairly reasonable assessment of an article based on evidently applicable policy. And the IP wasn't blocked for being a sock, it was blocked for being an open proxy. TimothyJosephWood 19:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• As this topic says it is within the scope of project firearms I've added a RfC notice to that page. [[58]] Springee (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some additional sources.

From The Washington Post, a noteworthy reliable source:

Los Angeles airport:

Hicks, Josh; Weil, Martin (November 2, 2013). "Suspect charged with murder in LAX shooting". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2017. According to the FBI, Ciancia entered the airport's Terminal 3 about 9:20 a.m. and approached the security checkpoint. Pulling a Smith & Wesson .223-caliber M&P-15 assault rifle from his bag, he fired multiple times at point-blank range at Hernandez, who was on duty and in uniform, leaving the screener wounded.

Aurora:

Fahrenthold, David A.; Heath, Thomas; Achenbach, Joel (July 22, 2012). "Aurora, Colo.,shooting spree: A day of tears for victims and twists in case". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2017. A law enforcement source, who is close to the investigation but not authorized to speak publicly, said something went awry in the killer's planned assault at the theater. Police said the alleged gunman had three weapons: a Remington shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle and a Glock .40-caliber handgun. The assault rifle, which is akin to an AR-15 and is a civilian version of the military's M-16, could fire 50 to 60 rounds per minute and is designed to hold large ammunition magazines. The source said that Holmes allegedly had obtained a 100-round drum magazine that attached to the weapon but that such large magazines are notorious for jamming. The law enforcement official said authorities think the gunman first used the shotgun — some victims have buckshot wounds — and then began using the assault rifle, which jammed. Then he resorted to the handgun.

San Bernardino:

Horwitz, Sari (December 3, 2015). "Guns used in San Bernardino shooting were purchased legally from dealers". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2017. The assailants, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, a county health worker, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, a woman described as his Pakistan-born wife, used two assault rifles. Law enforcement officials identified the rifles as a DPMS model AR-15 and a Smith & Wesson M&P 15.

Kessler, Glenn (December 10, 2015). "Marco Rubio's claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2017. Mass Shootings since 2012 Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., using a Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15 type rifle, a DPMS Panther Arms AR-15 type rifle, a Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol and a Llama semiautomatic pistol.

34.207.97.139 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)— 34.207.97.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This page is about the M&P-15, not the AR-15 family. If this is about the AR-15 family that is the page this should be mentioned on AR-15 variant. This does rather all look like synthesis.17:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Second the argument that as this isn't a wiki article about the generic AR-15 pattern rifle we shouldn't drag in articles that generically talk about AR-15 use in crimes etc. That would fit in the AR-15_variant article. I would support adding a section there assuming it doesn't too extensively overlap with any other articles. If there is a more specific AR-15 crime article then the AR015 Variant article should link to it as a sub topic. We should try to avoid the same information appearing in detail in too many Wiki articles. Cross linking is a better way to ensure consistency. Springee (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you endorsing a section in the AR-15_variant article about its use in crime? If we redirected this article there, then we could include the information besides other notable mass shootings committed with similar weapons. That might be a good solution. Felsic2 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I do endorse the addition of a crime/public debate/policy section to the general AR-15 article. There are a number of articles talking about the use of "AR-15" (the generic term, not the TM'ed name) and their use in crimes. Yes, it's kind of a subset of "assault weapons" and crimes but I think enough of the articles have focused on the AR pattern rifles to have weight for inclusion. I do support linking this article to the AR-15 variant article since this is clearly an AR variant even though it has some significant differences (not being direct impingement). I wouldn't link this to the crime section of the AR-15 variant article. Instead this article should focus on the aspects that make the S&W M&P15 different from a "generic AR-15" as well as the significance of this rifle to S&W. Springee (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor was canvasing for votes here [[59]] by selectively contacting previously involved editors. Since one was contacted I'm pinging all who were previously involved from the above discussions of the same disputed content. @Gaijin42:, @Faceless Enemy:, @Cwobeel:, @Herr Gruber:, @Thomas.W:. Springee (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional references supporting the proposed content, from The Wall Street Journal:

• (San Bernardino, Aurora): Bravin, Jess (December 8, 2015). "U.S. News: Justices Let Gun Curb Stand --- Supreme Court turns away appeal against an Illinois city's ban on semiautomatic arms". The Wall Street Journal. p. 3. Retrieved March 6, 2017. The ordinance was challenged by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Arie Friedman, a pediatrician and Republican activist who argued the law unconstitutionally required him to dispose of weaponry he owned. One of his guns -- a Smith & Wesson M&P semiautomatic rifle -- is the same type of weapon used in the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack where 14 people died and in the 2012 Aurora, Colo., cinema attack that killed 12 people.

• (Los Angeles airport): Audi, Tamara (November 3, 2013). "Suspect In LAX Shooting Charged With Murder; Shooting at Los Angeles Airport Leaves TSA Officer Dead, Three People Wounded". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 6, 2017. According to an affidavit in support of the complaint filed Saturday, Mr. Ciancia pulled a "Smith & Wesson .223 caliber M&P-15 assault rifle" out of a bag and "fired multiple rounds at point blank range" at Mr. Hernandez, who was stationed at a security checkpoint.

Please note the material above was added by another user here and reverted, but now *I* am the one adding it now, because it is relevant. Please do not revert or I am likely to take this to AN/I.

--David Tornheim (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved from the Survey section.

CuriousMind01, what I think I would want to see are sources saying that this gun was identified as being often used in particular circumstances, whether those circumstances be rabbit-shooting or criminality, otherwise I don't see the point in adding umpteen individual crimes to individual articles. There are possible exceptions to that general rule, the mail order gun bought by L-H Oswald has become notorious (though I can't remember the make off-hand) but in general I don't see the reason to add specific crimes to individual gun articles. I am UK and certainly don't approach this from any pro-gun position, since even most of UK police are unarmed, and function perfectly well. Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete I think the sources provided do identify 3 important historical criminal uses of this gun and the historical incidents do belong in an encyclopedia and in this gun article. Lesser crimes and uses could be entered in lists.Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

re however, to use the car analogy, most articles about car accidents at least say that a car was involved, -- yes the articles about car accidents mention the car make/model, not vice versa. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is that famous historical uses of cars are included in Wikipedia car articles per their wp:weight, for example: Mercedes-Benz_770 used by Hitler and Hirohito; Ford_Bronco used by OJ Simpson.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2017 (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.

Sourcing and neutrality

This article is very poorly sourced, so as to constitute a severe neutrality deficiency. The article is mainly sourced to Smith & Wesson press releases and the Smith & Wesson website, supplemented by gun enthusiast and industry magazines and websites. (The sales figures are sourced to government reports). The article makes no reference to the significant coverage of the subject of this article in main stream media reports or to tertiary sources such as books. The presentation of the subject non-neutrally represents coverage in reliable sources. 107.77.210.127 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)— 107.77.210.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Industry sources are still valid, reliable sources. You may not like them, but they're still valid. The government sources are valid and the discussion at RSN supports their use. The news item you keep trying to include isn't really that relevant and the absence of it doesn't really change the neutrality of the article. Actually, in looking at it, I'm not sure you've even made a serious case for the neutrality tag. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Failing to include a Las Vegas store's advertisement doesn't justify the NPOV tag. It looks like we might need to extend article and talk page protections. At least the IP has moved back to static Chicago area IPs vs Amazon based. Springee (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The current article non-neutrally presents its subject by systematically excluding summarizations of the significant coverage and viewpoints in main stream media reports and tertiary sources such as books WP:YESPOV. The current article cites no main stream media sources, no tertiary sources, and no book sources, despite voluminous coverage. 107.77.208.125 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The material you added is POV *and* gun politics, and has been reverted since there's no consensus here supporting adding that kind of material to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Exactly what book sources are in the "voluminous coverage"? What tertiary sources? Why do you keep harping on tertiary sources? The US government IS a mainstream source. So is Guns and Ammo magazine. It's nearly 60 years old and one of the most respected periodicals on the market. It's so mainstream that you'll find it in most airport newsstands Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've restore the POV template on the article. The article excludes negative points of view. Felsic2 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• It doesn't exclude negative points of view. It excluded non-notable points of view and POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that the VPC's POV is non-notable, despite the fact that they are routinely quoted by mainstream news sources?

Are you saying that an article mostly sourced to press releases from the manufacturer, and to publications supported by the manufacturer's advertising dollars can stay neutral while omitting any and all negative information?

Is that what you're saying? Felsic2 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The VPC may have a notable opinion on the issue of gun violence or gun control but this article isn't about those subjects. Just because a group has a notable opinion doesn't mean they should be in a particular article (ie off topic). The Beatles are highly notable but they aren't cited here either. Springee (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The subject of this article has been used in several high-profile incidents of gun violence. Felsic2 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And the RfC addressed that. Look this is just going round and round. There is no consensus for the material you want to add and there is no consensus for the POV tag. Springee (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The isn't consensus for the tag. Look at the replies above. Only you and a questionable IP who's efforts have already resulted in page protection have supported including the tag. How about this. If a non-IP editor supports adding the tag THEN add it. I would support that. Springee (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is going beyond disruptive. This has been months of round and round, trying to add the same stuff. I'll happily support ANI action. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus isn't needed for a POV template. See Help:Maintenance template removal: "A template should not be removed if any of the following applies: There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue". As you can see, there is an ongoing discussion. I'm going to restore the template pending a resolution of this dispute. Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

October 2016 Las Vegas M&P15 advertisement

The Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport II was offered by a Las Vegas gun shop for a "Pre-Hillary" sale price in a newspaper advertisement warning that "Prices will skyrocket after Crooked Hillary gets in," that received significant national and international coverage weeks before the 2016 Presidential election.

References

The due weight of content in Wikipedia is defined by policy as proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The above content was by far the most noteworthy content in this article, until it was deleted 10 March 2017 and 22 March 2017. An alternate summarization of the above sources is respectfully requested. 107.77.210.127 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)— 107.77.210.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It's really not about the gun, it's about a publicity stunt that used the gun. Regrdless, NOTNEWS would apply here. While it was newsworthy during the news cycle, it's not really something worth including in the long term Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding the above is a violation of our IP editor's topic ban [[60]]. WP:WEIGHT would also keep it out. Springee (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The news coverage of the sale price on the M&P15 is the most prominent coverage of the M&P 15 in main stream media sources, other than of course coverage of its historic criminal use. Sources include The Washington Post, Fox News, Money magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek, and others. The sources are noteworthy and reliable. The proposed content concisely summarizes multiple reliable sources. 107.77.207.197 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• It should be clear to our IP troll that this material isn't getting support. It should also be clear that the IP editor isn't trying to be a productive editor given that HughD... err... the IP added the same discussion a second time earlier today... [[61]] Note, yet another new IP address. Springee (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggest removing POV tag

• Support Removal: I've removed the POV tag from the article since it was added by a disruptive IP editor. Felsic2 has restored it. Thomas.W, Niteshift36, Reb1981 and I have all disagreed with the claim the IP editor has put forth to support the POV tag. The IP editor's disruptive behavior previously resulted in semi-protection status for the article (and I've requested it again [[62]] Do we have consensus to remove the tag? Springee (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Removal: The rational for the tag doesn't support it. The negative POV excluded is about the class of weapon, not this specific weapon. It belongs on an article about gun politics or maybe on the class of weapon. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Let's deal with the POV issues first.There are a number of them. See #Users below for another one. Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: why are you making this (invalid) vote a subtopic of the VPC discussion? The POV template I placed concerns additional issues, per my comments. Felsic2 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I created it as a subtopic of the POV issue the IP claims to have raised. Which comment do you claim you made which added to the POV concerns? Your "USERS" POV claim isn't a POV issue at all. It was a question about the reliability of a source to support a simple claim. Springee (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm the editor who placed the POV template. You already removed the one placed by the IP editor. My complaint concerns the use of sources and content. We can start a whole fresh thread if you prefer, but first let's deal with the already opened "Users" issue. Felsic2 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, since you are now claiming to have added it for a new issue vs the one raised by the IP I guess we can call the IP's concerns addressed. Editorial consensus agrees and we have a new editor who has voiced for removal of the tag. Now we can move to the POV issue you raised below. Springee (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if they're addressed or not. We still haven't come to a agreement on the VPC material. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, five named editors against, you and a IP sock editor for. That would suggest local consensus. Springee (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Once policies are replaced by voting on Wikipedia, that count will matter more. Local consensus cannot override project-wide policies. Felsic2 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal. The only editors that seem concerned with the alleged lack of neutrality are ones that also seem to be pushing an agenda. Coincidence? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks. You yourself seemed to recognize, at one time, the problem with omitting the list of criminal users while keeping the list of law enforcement users. Do you now believe that it's neutral to have these non-neutral criteria for inclusion? Felsic2 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's no personal attack. Saying you're pushing a POV is simply a case of WP:DUCK. I didn't recognize it as a problem. I simply made a comment to an editor about his suggestion. Saying that I wouldn't oppose it effectively took the wind out of the argument from someone who thought I'd oppose it. What "non-neutral criteria for inclusion" are you talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Calling me a POV pusher is indeed a personal attack.

The "non-neutral criteria for inclusion is that some users are allowed to be mentioned and not others, without regard for the strength or number of sources. Felsic2 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's ample evidence of your POV pushing. Your personal definition of non-neutral criteria is flawed. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal remarks, however true, don't belong on article talk pages. If you think I'm violating any rules then please make a complaint in the proper fashion and in the proper place. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Having a POV isn't a violation per se..... but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing the duck. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusing me is "POV pushing" is indeed accusing me of a violation. Please stop. Felsic2 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• You are pushing a POV, the evidence is plentiful. You know where ANI is located. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

*Keep POV notice as per Help:Maintenance template removal: "A template should not be removed if any of the following applies: There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue". This article has serious neutrality deficiencies. In summary, the current article non-neutrally favors the point of view of the manufacturer, and non-neutrally systematically excludes noteworthy reliable sources including vast main stream media news accounts. The neutrality issues in this article are under active discussion on this talk page in multiple sections include this section, Sourcing and neutrality, Violence Policy Center point of view on the history of the subject, Users, and others. The POV notice serves to notify our readers that they may be reading a non-neutral presentation of its subject WP:READERSFIRST and will help attract broader collaboration on addressing the many neutrality issues. The POV notice remains until these issues are resolved. 107.77.207.197 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC) IP editor blocked for block evasion [[63]] Springee (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tom Diaz book The Last Gun point of view on the history of the subject of this article

The history of the M&P 15 is that of extending the established M&P handgun brand to market an assault rifle product line to civilian consumers, according to Tom Diaz in his 2013 book The Last Gun.

References

Tom Diaz was by far the most noteworthy author cited anywhere in this article, before his point of view, attributed in text as per WP:YESPOV, was deleted. The current article is grossly non-neutral in its biased over-reliance on the manufacturer's website and press releases, and in the systematic exclusion of significant viewpoints from noteworthy reliable sources. The current article admits no controversy, and has no content even vaguely critical, of a highly controversial consumer product. Policy and guideline require balance. 107.77.207.197 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)— 107.77.207.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

With the opinion attributed, I don't see a reason for omitting this material. Felsic2 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry the since feel that it's a good idea to encourage IP trolls. The content isn't adding a new perspective about the gun but instead is being used as a clear rack for anti assault weapon material that isn't specific to the subject of this article. The recent RfC made it clear that such material should be on other articles but not this one. Springee (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The source and the proposed content are very clearly very specifically about the history of the Smith & Wesson M&P15. 107.77.207.197 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Start with incorrectly calling him a "gun expert". No, he's a gun control advocate. Second, whether he is notable or not, merely having an opinion isn't a reason to include it. Third, this is a transparent attempt to pimp promote his non-notable book.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We are asked to reflect all viewpoints in our articles; this is fundamental. The article currently has two citations to American Rifleman, the official journal of the National Rifle Association, an advocacy group; would you support deleting content sourced to American Rifleman from Wikipedia? Most of the article is sourced to the Smith & Wesson website and Smith & Wesson press releases; might Smith & Wesson be an advocate for its product? The proposed content represents a point of view currently absent from the article. I would also support "...according to gun violence prevention advocate Tom Diaz..." Thank you again. 107.77.207.197 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Misrepresenting "all viewpoints" doesn't help. Mere advocacy isn't the issue. Why would we include the opinions of a gun control "expert" (gun violence prevention is sugar coating) as to the history of the firearm? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as written, oppose due to IP sock trolling, cautious support in principle. See above, and please keep the discussion up there. I don't think a VPC employee quoting the VPC in a book partially authored by the VPC is any more or less notable than the previously mentioned VPC source. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. If the same information was sourced from it's original sources rather than from the VPC's article would that address your concerns? Springee (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean directly from the ATF? No, I mean I think the VPC's opinion on the rifle is probably notable as-is, and would definitely be notable if that paper or book were coverd in reliable secondary sources. At least their paper is actually about the S&W M&P15, rather than shoehorning in stories or sources about other topics. I just don't like agreeing with our sockpuppet friend, who is obviously here to push his/her POV, not build an encyclopaedia. Note that I really don't consider the VPC to be a reliable source for anything beyond their own opinions, but in this case their opinions on the subject are probably notable enough to warrant inclusion. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't understand why there is such a need to include this information. This rifle is just another AR-15 variant model. The information on crimes used with this weapons is already included with that article. I personally bought an M&P15 II and now years later the only thing that is S&W is the lower receiver. So that said just cause the weapon has that wording does not make it an M&P its standard universal design for an AR platform. Reb1981 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If this is just another AR-15 variant, why do we have an article about it? Since we have the article, why wouldn't we include what people have to say about it? Felsic2 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Because reliable sources treat it as distinct from other AR-15 pattern rifles. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, and my point regarding crimes that have reported the M&P15, can they prove without a doubt that it was not a modified M&P? Reb1981 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Violence Policy Center point of view on the history of the subject

A July 2012 report from the Violence Policy Center entitled Understanding the Smith & Wesson M&P15 Semiautomatic Assault Rifle Used in the Aurora, Colorado Mass Murder "discusses the history and profit motive behind Smith & Wesson’s introduction into the civilian market of its M&P15 semiautomatic assault rifles." The report said that the use of Smith & Wesson’s M&P15 assault rifle by James Holmes in the 2012 Aurora shooting "demonstrates the clear and present danger of a gun designed for war and ruthlessly marketed for profit to civilians."

References

This content concisely summarizes a noteworthy source representing a significant viewpoint on the subject of the article, a viewpoint currently excluded from the article WP:YESPOV. Currently the article non-neutrally exclusively presents Smith & Wesson's point of view on the subject of the article. 107.77.208.125 (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• As I wrote in the section above, it's POV *and* gun politics, and there's no consensus here supporting adding that kind of material to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Not that it's likely to change the opinion of our persistent sock editor but the RfC started by said editor made it clear there is a consensus against inclusion of the above material. Springee (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Wait.... how are you complaining there's no "mainstream sources" and then produce a POV report by an advocacy group? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• How can you say that the article is non-neutral. The article is just about the history and design. Just because this model may have been used in a crime does not mean it must be included. That should just be part of the crime's article. If that is the case we would have to include, as an example, every instance of when a car killed a person.. That doesn't make much sense does it? Also what you reference is from an Anti-gun advocacy group, that is far from neutral. Reb1981 (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is just about the history and design. The title and the lead indicate otherwise. We are asked to write comprehensive articles on a given subject. We are asked to summarize all significant aspects and points of view on a subject as represented in reliable sources. Please see WP:YESPOV. Sources need not be neutral. Please see WP:DUE. 107.77.209.96 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a noteworthy POV. I don't see any reason to exclude it. Felsic2 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

POVsVPC's opinion is not noteworthy in context of this article.

The IP editor is a sock of user HughD and the above discussion is a violation of the editor's indef topic ban.Springee (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC) - Edit, note that should have been VPC, I was typing too quickly.

POVs are important to include in every article. This article contains the Smith & Wesson POV, as expressed in the material sourced from them. NPOV says that we should include all significant points of view. Felsic2 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Where the official determination of sockpuppetry made? I saw the SPI was closed without a decision. Felsic2 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The recent investigation decided it was very likely but not certain. [[64]] Thus HughD's account cannot be further sanctioned but that doesn't mean we have to treat the IP as an editor in good standing. It was decided we have been dealing with a single WP:HOUNDing IP editor. Springee (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear who is hounding who, at this point. If The Wordsmith, as an admin, wants to take some action then that's within his authority. But that's all beside the point of whether to include well-sourced material or not. Remember, focus on the content, not the contributor. WP:TPG Felsic2 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You are begging the question when you claim the material is well sourced. This isn't the first time editors (not just myself) have objected to your claim that the VPC is a reliable, significant POV for a gun (not gun crime) article. Springee (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

They fit the description of a reliable source. They are frequently quoted in news stories, indicating they have a significant point of view. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No, they are a reliable source for their opinions on the subject. They are a significant gun control advocacy and gun crime policy advocacy organization. They are not a significant opinion in an article that isn't about either of those subjects. They are not a reliable source for opinions as to the motives of S&W. Springee (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

They are generally reliable. This article is full of citations to Smith & Wesson press releases that praise they gun and the company. If we want to avoid sources with a POV then let's start by removing those. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

According to whom? The VPC article starts by calling the gun an assault rifle and goes down hill from there. S&W might make a full auto version of the gun but the model the VPC is focusing on is the one for sale to the public. Do you agree with the actuality 'assault rifle' designation they use? Springee (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

AR-15s are commonly called "assault rifles". The text in question doesn't deal with that issue though, so that's a red-herring. Felsic2 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, by low quality sources, not sources reliable for firearms information. Just earlier today you were talking about this on Thomas.W's talk page[[65]]. The rest of the material in the VPC's article that is specific to the gun is either about crimes or material that can be better sourced from other places. Springee (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an opinion. Apparently @Thomas.W: doesn't know what an assault rifle is either. As you say, the VPC is, at a minimum, a reliable source for its own opinion. I can provide many quotes from mainstream sources showing their opinions are often cited. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Whether this was posted by a sock or not, I believe this probably warrants inclusion, as unlike the sources above, it is actually about the M&P15 rifle. Obviously the source has an axe to grind, and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight, but right now I support some level of inclusion of this source. I believe it can be done in a neutral manner; see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements. Does anyone have a link where this report was mentioned by secondary sources? Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think VPC viewpoints on the M&P15 are to be included per WP:NPOV, WP:Balance, WP:IMPARTIAL.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you find anywhere where their M&P15 report is cited by a secondary source? I haven't been able to, but I haven't gotten around to looking that hard yet. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to find numerous secondary sources that quote the VPC on guns and gun use. If you can't find those it's because you haven't looked. Requiring that this particular report is cited is being overly restrictive. I've never seen a similar requirement for other content. Felsic2 (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You would need to find reliable sources quoting the VPC with regards to the details of this gun, not the crimes it was used in or the VPC's views on gun crimes, assault weapons etc. I think you are unlikely to find a RS that cites this article with respect to basic facts about the gun itself. Springee (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception?

Why would we include Breitbart's opinion in the reception section? Breitbart's editors aren't firearms experts. The quotes from the gun magazines seem like they were selected for their throw away value more than anything else. They are little value to the reader. I would suggest either removing those quotes or improving the section. Springee (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be improved. I will look into it as well. Reb1981 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Gun magazines have a very slanted view of guns. They are supported by gun advertising and their coverage is almost uniformly favorable. There is ample reason for using more mainstream sources to balance their sycophantic bias. That said, Breitbart is not known as a terribly reliable or neutral source either. I don't understand the constant arguments on this talk page to remove information from the article. Felsic2 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, you don't understand most of the arguments. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That section is shit. It doesn't make my head hurt when I read it, but it looks like a 6-year-old wrote it. Whomever wrote it should stick to whatever it is they do besides writing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike I may have been hasty on that revert. I did just reread in whole. While I think we should have that section. It does need to be rewritten. Reb1981 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's for sure. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The current reception text reads like a sales promotion brochure to me, I agree with Mike Searson's delete and Springee's comments above.CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)