| Revision as of 23:35, 18 February 2018 editThewolfchild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,833 edits →Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:01, 19 February 2018 edit undoDlthewave (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,588 edits →Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings: RfC proposalTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| :::Well, if that's how the project members react to attempts at discussion and expressions of concern...: {{tq|off-topic nonsense}}; {{tq|anti-gun editors}}; {{tq|disruptive}}, etc. There is '''nothing''' stopping you from posting the RfC to ] or ]. You've said yourself that the edits are likely to be "controversial"; why not seek the widest possible consensus and input? ] (]) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | :::Well, if that's how the project members react to attempts at discussion and expressions of concern...: {{tq|off-topic nonsense}}; {{tq|anti-gun editors}}; {{tq|disruptive}}, etc. There is '''nothing''' stopping you from posting the RfC to ] or ]. You've said yourself that the edits are likely to be "controversial"; why not seek the widest possible consensus and input? ] (]) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::::You're ''still'' going on about this? - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ::::You're ''still'' going on about this? - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ===What to include in an RfC=== | |||
| I initially did not present this as an RfC because there seem to be several aspects that would be difficult to cover in a single RfC. I felt that more discussion was needed. | |||
| Here are the two questions that currently come to mind: | |||
| *What level of coverage should be given to shooting incidents in individual firearm articles such as ]? Should it be none, a simple list, or a more detailed section? | |||
| *What level of coverage should be given to the trend of AR-15 style rifles being used in mass shootings? Should it be included in ]? Should this take the form of statistical data or a more in-depth paragraph? | |||
| Any thoughts before I write an RfC? –] ] 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:01, 19 February 2018
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Firearms and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Firearms NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Firearms and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
 Archives | |||||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
WikiProject Military history / Firearms International
Discussions:
Military history / Firearms
Diskussionen: Militär / Waffen
Discussions: Histoire militaire / Armes
Discussioni: Guerra / Armi da fuoco / Armi
Dyskusje: Militaria / Broń
Обсуждения: Военная история
References
Valid Sources
After reviewing WP:FIND, I'm still not sure what sources are valid. Guns are an interesting subject to try to source, because many of the publications are very blog-like, and heavy on the subjective reviews, but still contain a plethora of technical data. Websites like americanrifleman.org, range365.com, shootingillustrated.com, and guns.com are what I'm wondering about, specifically. Anyway, if any of you all would kindly help me out, that would be appreciated. Mr.1032 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
AR-15s in California
I recommend that AR-15s in California article be merged with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 page with appropriate redirect. Please comment at Talk:AR-15s in California.--Limpscash (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
A huge pile of instruction-manuals for firearms
Hi folks, via archive.org you can obtain a huge pile of instructionmanuals for firearms. Perhaps you like to link them in the corresponding articles or find some other use for them ;-) Access archive.org by https://web.archive.org/web/20180204114622/http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/ HTH + greets from de:PD:WF & germany 80.187.100.131 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. I have taken the liberty to add a "Resource" section to the main page including this info...Instruction manuals for a wide range of firearms, in PDF form....We can also use this new "Resource" section for additional sources of information.--RAF910 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not reliable sources for notability purposes, for the record, but could probably be used for basic factual info. Thanks! ansh666 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my thinking. The manufacture is always the undisputed authority on production history and design details: weight, barrel length, caliber, ammunition restrictions, etc.--RAF910 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? I went to this page, with a long list of what look like are meant to be links. They don't actually link to anything... Going to that same page from the site's home page is no help, either. TREKphiler 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Click on PDF...the right side of page--RAF910 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? I went to this page, with a long list of what look like are meant to be links. They don't actually link to anything... Going to that same page from the site's home page is no help, either. TREKphiler 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my thinking. The manufacture is always the undisputed authority on production history and design details: weight, barrel length, caliber, ammunition restrictions, etc.--RAF910 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @RAF910 in fact a very good idea = "add a "Resource" section to the main page" :-) a well (as subpage) organized pendant in german projekt firearms can be found via: de:Portal:Waffen/Mitarbeit/Quellen_IB.
- The folks in the german projekt did a lot to make it look nice and to have comfortable interconnections. In the meantime most of them are tired (or retired) ;-) If you like this, feel free to have a closer look to their former working results. For a better impression about the organisation of this resource areas they can be read in translated Versions: see Sublibary 01 and Libary overview. A similar site in en:WP can be found via Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Logistics#Sources. BTW within de:WP we decided not to connect it from WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Shared_Resources#Technology. Reason was to keep the area calm. A connection from the area "Resource" section to the main page" which you created now was perfect as we experienced. HTH cordial greetings to all members of this projekt and have fun with the stuff. --80.187.109.37 (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC) P.S. I tried to identify active users of this project by the template. Unfortunately, with little success :-(
- "Click on PDF" My windows were too small to see those after the page loaded...without scrolling sideways. Thx. TREKphiler 03:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Addition of crime to firearms-related articles
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Addition of crime to the Smith & Wesson articleThere is a debate at the Smith & Wesson article regarding the inclusion of the recent shooting in Florida in the article because it has been reported that the AR-15 used was a S&W model. Springee (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Addition of crime to the Modern sporting rifle articleThere is a another debate at the Talk:Modern sporting rifle article regarding the inclusion of crime and mass shooting info.--RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Addition of crime to the Colt AR-15 articleThere is a another debate at the Talk:Colt AR-15 article regarding the inclusion of crime and mass shooting info.--RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Same debate, multiple articles... here's a proposalIt appears that proposals to add information on mass-shootings are popping up on several firearms-related articles. As firearms are one of the central components of the subject being debated, I propose we direct all these discussion and their straw polls here to one centralized discussion, seeking one community-wide consensus. Otherwise, we'll end up with a local consensus going one way on one article and another way on a different article, which will lead to further disputes when editors start citing different discussions and their local consensus to support controversial edits to firearms and mass-shooting related articles.
|
Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings
This is a consolidation of similar discussions taking place at Talk:Modern sporting rifle, Talk:Smith & Wesson and Talk:Colt AR-15.
- There is significant RS coverage of the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings. Should this be covered in any of the relevant firearms articles? If so, what would be the most appropriate way to include this information? –dlthewave ☎ 20:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment -- my suggestion would be to have the discussion outside of the project space, as this may result in a project-specific consensus, not a community one. Possible venues include WP:NPOVN or WP:VP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: - Every one of these articles falls under this project. To assume bias is a lack of WP:AGF. This is precisely where this discussion should be held. However, that said, there is nothing stopping you from posting notifications on the "WP:NPOVN or WP:VP" talk pages, or anywhere else for that matter, to involve as much of the community as possible. - WOLFchild 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- The stated goal of the discussion is to achieve "a single, community-wide consensus". When the immediate reaction is "This is the usual gun confiscator garbage", yes, the location of the discussion appears to be non-neutral. I'm afraid that it would only result in a localised consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: - I'm aware of the stated goal, I wrote it. And while you added the diff of a single, politically charged pro-gun comment, (from a different page BTW), I could also add diffs of politically charged, anti-gun comments, but I won't. Instead, I'll say again, the articles being discussed, and potentially affected, fall under the scope of this project, therefore this is where the discussion should be held. And I will also say again, there is nothing stopping you from posting notifications to as many venues as you like, to ensure the widest community response, and with that, a balanced response. You seem to be treating these pages as different physical locations, and if the discussion is held here, then people can't be bothered to get in their cars and drive allll the way over here. This is just a page of the same website, like any of the other pages you suggested. Please go read WP:AGF and stop trying to derail this discussion. - WOLFchild 23:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Local consensus for all articles covered by project firearms, which is where the issue lies. Seems fairly reasonable to me. PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Then yet, that's local consensus. In such case, calling it a
community-wide consensus
is inaccurate. Articles do not "belong" to a project, and the applicability of such consensus would be limited. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)- It's not "local consensus"... do you even know that means? This discussion has barely begun and you're already derailing it with repetitive, off-topic nonsense. Do you see a massive pro-gun response here? Are anti-gun editors somehow being shut out of this discussion or barred from this page? Stop this already. - WOLFchild 23:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Then yet, that's local consensus. In such case, calling it a
- The stated goal of the discussion is to achieve "a single, community-wide consensus". When the immediate reaction is "This is the usual gun confiscator garbage", yes, the location of the discussion appears to be non-neutral. I'm afraid that it would only result in a localised consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: - Every one of these articles falls under this project. To assume bias is a lack of WP:AGF. This is precisely where this discussion should be held. However, that said, there is nothing stopping you from posting notifications on the "WP:NPOVN or WP:VP" talk pages, or anywhere else for that matter, to involve as much of the community as possible. - WOLFchild 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like every time this happens every AR-15 related article gets spammed with info on it, even if it not the AR branded to the article or a AR at all, which is far from idea. Part of the issue seems to be that AR-15 and other common terms redirect to Colt AR-15, I think a good start would be changing that to Modern sporting rifle. If we cannot do that a tag at the top similar to what we do for the Kleenex article "For the generic item, see Modern sporting rifle." or the AR-15 (disambiguation) might be a good step to avoid confusion. For info on the shootings themselves Mass shootings in the United States might be a good place to expand on them. PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Part of the problem, which Misplaced Pages can help fix, is that the term AR-15 is used basically as a designator for all semi-automatic rifles. Twenty years ago the media referred to all of these rifles as "AK-47"s which thankfully ended. The goal should be to inform the reader without sensationalizing the use of these weapons. The mass shooters like the school shooter in Florida aren't experts in weapons and take their cues from coverage. We should strive to be accurate and not feed the sensationalism and hype. This isn't a marketing platform for mass shooters to indulge their wet dreams. --DHeyward (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
clarification
I think an experienced and uninvolved editor should post a clear and neutrally written RfC here that spells out exactly what is being discussed and what the possible outcomes are. It seems to me that as a reaction to the recent shooting in Florida, several editors, (some of whom are newcomers, here just for this purpose) are seeking to include mention of mass-shootings and other notable, and possibly controversial, firearms-related incidents to the articles of various firearms; their types, brands and manufacturers. Many other editors have opposed this, the reasons varying from opposing political points of view to reasons supported by the policies & guidelines of this project.
Should it decided that this content is to be included, which articles are 'in' and which are 'out'? What form would these additions take? A "Controversy" section? A section titled "List of incidents involving X"? Would these be detailed entries? Or simple point form additions? (eg: by date, or name of incident) Would there be a limit? (these additions could potentially outweigh the rest of the content of some of these articles). I would do this myself, (and this comment almost appears like an RfC effort), but I have already participated in some of the straw polls so I would be considered 'involved'. Cheers - WOLFchild 22:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Given that the topic is contentious (see my comments above), I would again suggest holding the RfC at WP:NPOVN or WP:V. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Now you're just being disruptive. - WOLFchild 23:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if that's how the project members react to attempts at discussion and expressions of concern...:
off-topic nonsense
;anti-gun editors
;disruptive
, etc. There is nothing stopping you from posting the RfC to WP:NPOVN or WP:VP. You've said yourself that the edits are likely to be "controversial"; why not seek the widest possible consensus and input? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)- You're still going on about this? - WOLFchild 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if that's how the project members react to attempts at discussion and expressions of concern...:
- Now you're just being disruptive. - WOLFchild 23:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
What to include in an RfC
I initially did not present this as an RfC because there seem to be several aspects that would be difficult to cover in a single RfC. I felt that more discussion was needed. Here are the two questions that currently come to mind:
- What level of coverage should be given to shooting incidents in individual firearm articles such as Colt AR-15? Should it be none, a simple list, or a more detailed section?
- What level of coverage should be given to the trend of AR-15 style rifles being used in mass shootings? Should it be included in Modern sporting rifle? Should this take the form of statistical data or a more in-depth paragraph?
Any thoughts before I write an RfC? –dlthewave ☎ 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Categories: