Talk:SIG MCX

Criminal Use

Should we include this was the weapon used by Omar Mateen in the Pulse massacre in Orlando? Not an Armalite-15? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therubicon (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any mention of the Orlando massacre on the article for AR-15; in fact, on most firearm pages, including Glock (Mateen also used a Glock 17), you're not going to find mention of crimes committed with the guns in question. I think I know where you're going with this but it won't make a difference. Links to this page and to the Glock page are highly visible at the top of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting page and unless you're seriously willing to start adding respective crimes to every gun page on here, you're probably out of luck. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to add it to the article here because there isn't anything else about this gun that's more notable. There's no WP policy that prohibits including sourced information about the use of guns in crimes, and there are some policies, like WP:DUE, that seem to say we should include it. See my essay at WP:GUNCRIME. Felsic2 (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Going with WP:DUE, I didn't see anything in your essay about why the particular gun used in a crime is important enough that it gets mentioned while other criminal tools don't. Specifically, I was looking here. Usually, when we're talking about a shooter's gun, we're talking about one of the tools used to commit the crime. While it's almost certain that Mateen was on a suicide mission, a lot of shooters aren't and they make getaway plans (with maps, accomplices, and vehicles) accordingly. Calling a getaway vehicle stashed by the killer a "peripheral" tool would be inaccurate since it's there because the killer sees it as the difference between getting caught and escaping. (And since its presence could indicate malice aforethought, it can establish for a prosecutor the difference between not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty of first-degree murder. The method of escape matters.) He arguably committed at least two more crimes by calling 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS, but I don't want to know what would happen if I went to the page for the page for the phone it looks like he owned, a Samsung Galaxy S6, and inserted the information there.

I guess the question is, why is one tool used in the commission of a crime more pertinent than the others? Media mentions? Because how many media reports contained the phrases "SIG MCX" and/or "Glock 17" (or "AR-15" back when they thought that was the gun used) versus how many mentioned the 911 call he made to commit a crime? RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Going with WP:DUE, which 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, I think we'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of this firearm wich has been given greater weight in reliable sources than its use in the Orlando shooting. The topic of this article isn't Samsung Galaxy S6, but if it were and if there were numerous stories about how the shooter had used that product in a highly newsworthy massacre, then that should be included there too. I haven't noticed any such artices, but that'd be a discussion for another page.

While Google isn't a perfect research tool, I suggest you search for "SIG MCX" or "SIG Sauer MCX" and see what the preponderance of sources talk about.

And turn the question around - if this firearm is not notable for being used in that shooting then what is it notable for? Merely existing? Having been reviewed in a blog? Felsic2 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"I think we'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of this firearm wich has been given greater weight in reliable sources than its use in the Orlando shooting." Here's a Google war I never though I'd do: "SIG MCX" versus "SIG MCX -Mateen." You are, of course, right in that almost every one of the first twenty or so hits for the first search are about the shooting. But with that second search, I'm trying to find mentions outside of the shooting. And seriously: There are tons of prominent mentions in reliable, professional media because every gun publication you can think of reviewed it. Plainly: yes. I believe several reviews in high-visibility media (as high-visibility as gun media gets, that is) is enough to establish notability for an article.

Although I'm sure something like this exists, I don't know what, exactly, is the bright line where this gun is notable and that gun isn't. If I seriously had to answer that, I'd just say high sales (which might not be publicly available information), appearances in movies/TV shows, or the aforementioned reviews. Because outside of illegal use, reviews are pretty much the only time any weapons will get mentioned in the news. So I'll turn the question back around: isn't there anything else we can use to get a firearm's article past the notability requirement besides a horrific crime related to that gun? That's obviously why this article exists, but I think that's because looking around, I don't see many gun enthusiasts on here. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This gun is notable because it was developed, produced and sold by a major manufacturer for sporting, law enforcement and military uses. It's lawful use in stopping crime dwarfs its criminal use by an astronomical amount. This is true for Glock and AR-15s as well. --DHeyward (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Although it is worth pointing out that this article didn't get created until the Orlando shooting and probably still wouldn't exist had Mateen used an AR-15. Let's say some obscure boutique gunmaker had made only three copies of a model of gun and one of those three was used to perpetrate a massacre. Would that gun get an article? I honestly think so even though such a gun wouldn't meet any of the standards you laid out. Is there any policy or guideline on this? We haven't established a bright line: this is what makes a gun notable and that isn't enough. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This gun is notable because it was developed, produced and sold by a major manufacturer for sporting, law enforcement and military uses.

There's nothing like that in any of the "notability" guidelines I can find. Maybe I missed one. The usual standard for notability is something like:

• Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

According to that, notability is determined by the depth and range of sources, and from having gained attention by the "world at large". How much attention had the world at large taken of the SIG MCX before this shooting? The "world at large", beyond hobbyist magazines and some government agencies, took no notice of it. It is not notable for weighing 2.61 kg, or for using .62×39mm ammunition.

It's lawful use in stopping crime dwarfs its criminal use by an astronomical amount. This is true for Glock and AR-15s as well.

Then how come we have't heard about any of these uses to stop crime? If it's more famous for being carried by law enforcement and soldiers then that part should get more attention. It isn't a zero-sum game. We can include both. Why can't the article be a few sentences or paragraphs longer? Felsic2 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Herr Gruber (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but what does determine the content? The NPOV policy is one of the main policies, and it says that everything neds to be included in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. The sources which mention the criminal use are more prominent than those which list the variants sold, for example.

I put it back because the editor who deleted it used faulty logic and an incorrect policy citation. He wrote:

WP:UNDUE - it has been used thousand of times. Should we list each soldier that has used one successfully in battle?

WP:UNDUE doesn't say that we censor information about notable events just because there are thousands of non-notable events. A close comparison would be excluding a list of notable people who come from a city just because millions of non-notable people come from it as well.

Also, the editor never gave any sources for these thousands of uses. So no one here has presented any good reason based on actual policy to delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Have removed trivia about this rifle being used in Orlando. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use for guideline. No laws have changed, and no legislative action has occurred. If it does later, then this can be reconsidered. But, for now, despite it being a sad misuse of a firearm, the fact it was used in Orlando is but trivia. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: A massacre of 49 people, with another 50 or so wounded, is not "trivia". How could you call that trivial compared to dry statistics like the weight and dimensions of these rifles?

The style suggestions of Wikiproject Firearms are not a guideline and have no more authority than an essay. "This section is an essay on style." It is merely advice - it is not binding on any article. Please stop citing that advice page as if it was a guideline. There is no Wikipedia rule that laws have to be changed for crimes to be mentioned. See WP:GUNCRIME#WP:GUN. Felsic2 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The project guidelines reflect a consensus of multiple editors. Your essay reflects a consensus of you, and is you coming up with "magic bullet" arguments which are supposed to somehow let you cheat around the rules re:consensus. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely your POV that mainstream journalistic political activism constitute a reliable source. Said journalists are actually so unreliable they were declaring the shooter's weapon to be an AR15 before they even knew if that was actually the case and tying this to the threat of the Scary Black Rifle. Moreover, you're trying to bulldoze through an existing guideline that reflects consensus over what firearm articles should contain. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Herr Gruber: It's not my POV that mainstream journalists writing for mainstream publications are reliable sources. It's the way that Wikipedia works. Do you believe that "The Truth About Guns", a blog, is less politically active than Newsweek? It's the only independent source in this article. "American Rifleman" is politically active. Should we delete it from all articles because of its pro-gun bias? That'd be crazy. Unless they're actually fringe sources, having a political bias doesn't invalidate a source. And please keep the rhetoric down. No one has talked about "Scary Black Rifles" except you. Felsic2 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not the way Wikipedia works. Sources that are blatantly advancing a particular political position are not suitable as anything but sources about that political position (ie, as proof the position exists and of what that position consists of), we do not make the jump to asserting that the position itself is true simply because they say it is. As the policy on sources notes, a source is not on-off "reliable" or "unreliable," it is determined by context. A source which is primarily an editorial advocating a political position is not as good for basic information about a thing as a source that is not. That's that "neutrality" policy you keep bringing up, which is about not asserting a political position in either the article itself or the choice of sources used by it.

A review is not a political position, and so is not treated the same way: there is nothing political about discussion of how a firearm works or if it is a good one in technical terms. While we can surmise that Thetruthaboutguns is probably pro-2A, there is nothing about the linked page that actually advances or advocates such a position, as opposed to the newsweek article which contains controversial language and dubious terminology in the title (SIG "cashed in," claiming a civilian carbine is an "assault rifle" and that it "has few practical applications other than killing humans at scale"), nevermind the body of the text. You assume omitting information about criminal use in expert publications about firearms is some dastardly political exercise (as opposed to them simply regarding it as irrelevant), but you're blind to this requiring that either every publication on guns ever written is American (false) or alternatively every gun expert and military historian in the world has a vested interest in US gun politics (patently absurd).

The crux of this, though, is your contention that a shooting has something to do with the firearm used in it, which would require some expert (ie not an editorial piece by someone who works for International Business Times, since that is not a publication noted for firearms expertise) to assert that were the case; you'd need to prove to us that this deserved to be mentioned and establish a consensus, not just prove it to yourself and try to steamroll consensus with links to your special page of reasons why consensus doesn't apply to you. You've so far presented things that say it was used that way, but no justification for putting that information in this article, just a lot of Wikilawyering. Your constant POV-pushing might be a little more convincing if you started with weapons legendary for use in crimes (Thompson SMG) or used in a list of massacres, terrorist acts and war crimes as numerous as stars in the sky (AK series), but you're blatantly pushing for the "black rifles are evil crime guns" angle. I mean hell, you didn't even try to list the AR-derived M16s used in the My Lai Massacre to pretend your edits aren't exclusively about current US gun politics. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the responses here have cited any actual WP policies or guidelines to justify the removal of this well-cited, relevant material. That makes it seem like the only reason for the deletion is "I don't like it", and that ain't a valid reason.Felsic2 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The rule on consensus would be a good start, followed by UNDUE. No authoritative source about firearms lists crimes committed with them, and no authoritative source regards crimes committed with weapons as being fundamental to the weapons themselves. This means a list of crimes is about as relevant as a list of the maiden names of the mothers of the designers. If every reliable firearms-related source listed crimes committed with weapons, so would we. But none of them do.

That's the thing: the things an article about a piece of technology lists or does not list are derived from how authoritative sources about that piece of technology describe them. For example, aircraft articles usually have a 3-plan view of the aircraft because almost all aviation books include one with the stats of the aircraft: this is an accepted mode of presentation. Similarly, I can crack open my Jane's Guns Recognition Guide and it will include the dimensions of the firearm, production years, markings and brief information about what it does (and how to unload it), but will not include a 3-plan (hence why gun articles don't have those) or place any particular score in individual use. The sole exception is weapons like the Thompson submachine gun where entire books on them go into detail about their history, which in the case of the Thompson obviously includes use by gangsters. Even so, that article only specifically mentions the most famous gangster use (by Al Capone) and devotes all of one sentence to it, not even mentioning, say, George "Machine Gun" Kelly despite that using a Thompson was how he got his nickname.

In order to include the section you want, you would have to demonstrate sources about firearms, by experts on firearms, regard criminal use as being as inseparable from the weapon as how long it is or what round it fires. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus does no override site-wide policies.

There is no policy that says we structure articles the same way that popular books are structured.

There is no policy that says all articles on types of weapons should contain the same types of information to the exclusion of other information.

There is a policy, WP:DUE, that says we include material based on it prominence in mainstream publications.

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 use of this weapon in the Orlando shooting has been discussed in reliable sources. More sources, and more prominent sources, than discuss its length or weight.

Therefore, this article should, and must in order to comply with WP policy, contain a mention of the Orlando shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is fine to mention in the various terrorism articles what items were used by the criminals. However, in articles on firearms, in keeping with longstanding practice on Wikipedia, we do not include such trivia. It is not trivia that people die, of course. The various articles on terrorism incidents are entirely appropriate, and it is entirely appropriate to cite in these various articles what items were used to commit these crimes. Trucks, cars, pressure cookers, firearms, etc., are all commonly used. Judging from the death tolls, firearms are not even in the most dangerous categories. Large trucks and pressure cookers seem to have that dubious "honor". However, we do not mention in particular truck or car models how many have been mowed down by particular vehicle or cooking item models. Likewise, in articles on pressure cookers, we do not mention how many have been killed with particular Presto or whatever model pressure cookers, either. It is the same for firearms. On the other hand, if legislative action is taken against particular trucks, pressure cookers, or firearms as a result of action by legislators stemming from particular crimes, then it is entirely appropriate to mention in specific item articles that such legislative action stemming from particular crimes have resulted. Hence, there is no logical reason to mention in the firearm article what crimes have been committed with it, unless legislative action results. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Longstanding practice" isn't a policy. Using reliable sources is. We're not discussing generic topics like trucks and pressure cookers. This is an article about a specific commercial product that has gained fame for one particular event. And, according to sources, the use of the weapon in the Orlando shooting has resulted in legislation. Felsic2 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

See below regarding the blogs. That has nothing to do with the majority of material you deleted. Felsic2 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding of policy here that articles about firearms do not include notable criminal uses, notable defensive gun uses, or movie/TV/video game uses unless that particular use has become well-known enough to be mentioned in reliable sources *about the firearm itself*. One example would be the Smith & Wesson Model 29, made famous in Dirty Harry. A counter-example would be the fact that the SVT-40's article does not mention it being used in particular video games, even though those video games themselves are notable (and often have their own Wikipedia pages). So those video game pages may link to the SVT-40's page, but not the other way around. I would disagree with Herr Gruber that the source has to be "by experts on firearms" or that the criminal (or other) use must be "as being as inseparable from the weapon as how long it is or what round it fires"; I think that's setting the bar too high. If, for example, a mainstream publishing house published a book by a prominent investigative journalist called "The SIG Sauer MCX: Everything You Ever Needed to Know about This Gun" and it included a whole chapter on how the SIG Sauer MCX had been used in the Orlando shooting, I would say that we should probably include criminal use, with due considerations to weight, bias, NPOV, etc. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your "understanding of policy" may be mistaken. There isn't any policy on criminal use of guns in crimes, besides the usual policies that govern every other word in the article. The standard you propose is frankly absurd. Hardly anything can meet that standard, especially since no such book exists. Felsic2 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Felsic2 couldn't get any support for adding material about the weapon's use in crimes on Talk:AR-15, so he moved here instead. Such a section does not belong here either, no more than a section about the common use of Fords and Chevrolets in drunk-driving incidents belong on Ford and Chevrolet. And, as I told him/them on Tak:AR-15 being sourced isn't by and of itself reason enough to include anything. Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Different pages, different sources. Let's keep separate pages separate. This isn't about AR-15s. If being sourced isn't sufficient, then what policies do we use to decide what to include? See also: WP:PRESERVE. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, it has nothing to do with the quality of the sources, it's about whether it belongs in the article or not, regardless of the quality of the sources. Thomas.W ^talk 20:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please answer the question about which policies tell us how we decide which material to include. Felsic2 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Primarily two sections of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy with the shortcuts WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS, the former deals with due and undue weight in general, and the latter says this: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." (my emphasis). And being used when committing crimes isn't a defining/major characteristic or aspect of neither the AR-15 nor the SIG MCX. If we were dealing with an article about "garage built" very compact submachine guns that have no use other than for committing crimes a section about their use in crimes would be appropriate, but not in articles abut rifles that are designed for, and overwhelmingly used for, legal activities. Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that the Orlando shooting, the largest mass shooting in modern US history, is a minor news story whose importance is only momentary. If so, that's obviously incorrect.

As for the text you cite, let's look at part of it: " with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Are the sources unreliable? I don't think so. There are many reliable sources about this gun that talk about its use in the Orlando shooting. You are saying that there is no way at all we can mention that shooting in this article, even if there are a thousand sources. That would be ignoring WP:DUE entirely.

Finally, you say that the weapon is used "overwhelmingly for legal activities". But you aren't providing even a single source to establish that fact. Felsic2 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's some articles about the weapon, and closely related topics:

• Sig Sauer MCX – the weapon that caused 100+ causalities in Orlando massacre
• A closer look at the Orlando shooter’s weapon
• Sig Sauer, maker of Orlando gunman's weapon, is expanding rapidly in U.S.
• Omar Mateen Had a “Modern Sporting Rifle”
• Weapons gunman used in Orlando shooting are high-capacity, common
• BAY AREA NEWS GROUP: California panels approve raft of gun control bills in wake of Orlando massacre
• The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.
• This Is the Assault Rifle Used by the Orlando Mass Shooter
• Orlando killer's gun popular through marketing and ease of use
• What constitutes ‘automatic’ weapons at issue after Orlando
• The Orlando Killer's Weapon Of Choice Was 'The Ultimate Hunting Rifle'
• Orlando victims look to Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker
• Doctors: High-velocity Orlando rifle inflicts 'devastating' wounds
• Rifle used in Orlando shooting was designed for military use
• More, added later
• gun used by Orlando shooter a 'weapon of war'?
• Rifle used in Orlando attack manufactured by NH company Sig Sauer
• Public Advocate Letitia James urges banks to cut ties with manufacturer of gun used in Orlando shooting
• Family of Pulse victim plans to sue gunmakers Sig Sauer and Glock
• How Orlando Shooter's Gun Differs From an AR-15
• Nazi Roots, EU Violations, and Mass Shootings: Meet the shady gun manufacturer whose rifle killed 49 people in Orlando
• Maker Of Assault Weapon Reportedly Used In Orlando Massacre Sponsors NRA News Show Called "Defending Our America"
• Omar Mateen’s Gun: How Sig Sauer Cashed In By Selling Assault Rifles To Civilians
• Former Green Beret: Is the AR-15 the weapon of choice for mass shootings and terrorists?

Are editors here really arguing that none of these are reliable, that none of these are about the SIG MCX, and that we can write as much as we want about the color and weight of the gun, but can't add a single sentence about its most famous use? Felsic2 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• You were told that it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the sources, but is all about balanced weight. You then asked what policy would apply, were pointed to it, and told both what it says and what those words mean in real life. And now you're back to arguing about the quality of the sources again, obviously not having understood, or perhaps not wanting to understand, what you were told. Behaviour that can best be described as tendentious editing coupled with a large dose of "I didn't hear that", and is not desirable here... Thomas.W ^talk 21:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, balanced weight. The article is severaly unbalanced if it relies almost exclusively on the manufacturer's website while totally ignoring what almost every other source says. I can't see how that can be called "balanced". Felsic2 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously didn't understand what the policy I pointed you to says, even though I quoted a large part of it verbatim from the policy page. Suggested reading: WP:IDHT, especially the last part of that section, because right now you're just a big time sink for other editors. Thomas.W ^talk 21:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The first part of that quoted policy text matters too: treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. So sources, particularly their reliability and content, are the main factor in determining article content. If you don't want to engage in this discussion then you nobody's keeping you here. Felsic2 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That's cherry-picking/selective quoting, and you know it. And I expected you to do just that, having seen you in action on Talk:AR-15, which is why I bolded the part about being careful when things are in the news, since being in the news naturally results in there being a disproportionate number of sources directly related to that particular event. Thomas.W ^talk 22:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's no more "cherry-picking" than what you posted. Here's the first line of WP:UNDUE. You can't accuse me of selective quoting for citing it:

• 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.'

All I'm asking is for us to include material in in proportion to its prominence in the published, reliable sources. Meanwhile, you still haven't produced a single source to back up your assertion that the weapon is used "overwhelmingly for legal activities". So c'mon - let's balance the article by including some mention of what has made it famous. Felsic2 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Felsic, you are one editor trying to force your POV through against I believe about half a dozen by now. This doesn't belong here, it belongs under Gun Politics in the United States, because it's about politics. These aren't viewpoints about this gun, but about gun crime and gun control. Your assertion that this is notable is based entirely on ignoring the UNDUE guidelines regarding recentism, and ignoring that none of your sources are considered reliable sources about firearms. As I said, using your own standards we should put a huge list of terrorist activities in the article Islam simply because it can be sourced. As I also said, all your edits are to do with US gun politics and your edits are blatantly pushing an anti-AR15 POV, pretending you're striving for balance isn't going to fool anyone.

Playing sections of UNDUE off against each other isn't how policy works: the whole thing applies at the same time, and so the rule re: fair representation is to be read in light of the rule regarding avoiding recentism and excessive focus on single events. You can't just quote the part that's convenient to you on its own and act like it's the most important part, there is no most important part. The "in the news" part is very specifically designed to prevent what you're trying to do here.

Trying to cheat your way around the WP:GUN policy on legislation with California laws that were introduced last December over a completely different shooting and don't ban any feature Omar Mateen's gun actually had is similarly not going to work.

Also really, you need a source for a mass-produced firearm used in a single crime being overwhelmingly used legally? Do you think that was the only MCX in existence? One of your own sources that you consider reliable specifically claims that the MCX series has "been such a success that it helped revive the Sig Sauer company's business," how do you think it could do that if a very large number of rifles had not been sold to customers who, going by the news, have not used them for any unlawful purpose? Herr Gruber (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is getting acrimonious, especially with accusations like POV pushing and cheating. I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and I suggest we use that forum to find consensus on this issue. Felsic2 (talk)

Your wounded angel act is as fake as your claims of wanting balance. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Break

@Thomas.W: In the rush of words I missed some points you made that deserve a reply.

First: Above, you compared this article to other articles, including these comments. That implies you think that other articles set a precedent for the contents of this article.

Such a section does not belong here either, no more than a section about the common use of Fords and Chevrolets in drunk-driving incidents belong on Ford and Chevrolet.

As I said, using your own standards we should put a huge list of terrorist activities in the article Islam simply because it can be sourced.

Below, you write:

So how about trying to sway my opinion by giving a good and valid reason for why it should be included? Other than that there are nicknames in various other articles. (note: link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

That comment sems to imply that other articles do not set a precedent for this article. Before we go further, can you tell me if you think that the content of other articles matters or not?

Second, you cited WP:v# Balancing aspects:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Right now, this article has just two sources: the manufacturer's webpage and a a weblog about firearms. Let's round that up to ten, just for the sake of argument. Let's say there are 80 sources which talk about its use in Orlando. Following WP:DUE, it would appear that the Orlando use should account for 8/9 of the article. However, the policy text you cite says we shouldn't follow strict proportionality. In other words, the quantity of sources should be discounted somewhat. It does not say that they should be ignored entirely.

Further, the Orlando shooting is not a minor event which will quickly fade from memory. Nor is the SCX like the AK47, that firearm is well known in many contexts. The MCX is known only for this shooting, other than some perfunctory reviews and mentions in hobbyist publications, and some shadowy mentions in military-oriented ones. We don't have to wait fifty years to know that the Orlando shooting will always figure prominently in any future source search about the MCX.

So WP:BALASPS, in my opinion, says to give news stories appropriate weight, but it does not say that information about recent events can't be included in articles at all.

I hope that's clear. Let me know if I've left anything unanswered. Felsic2 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The question here is "what is the subject?" Is this article about:

• The piece of machinery called the SIG MCX. If this, then how people use or perceive it is largely irrelevant unless it has tangible effects on the design or availability of the piece of machinery called the SIG MCX (much as, say, incidents of someone being injured by a particular type of metal press wouldn't be relevant unless it was found to be due to a problem with the metal press), and belongs in an article about how people use guns.
• The idea of the SIG MCX, including how people perceive it. If this, then this should be mentioned, but so should a lot of other things.

This is the main problem here: you're assuming it's necessarily the second one (and all your arguments are based around this assumption, in particular your contention that journalistic sources which are about the idea are relevant), when precedent supports it being the first one. This is why we're getting intractable problems here: we're not actually trying to write articles about the same thing. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The SIG MCX is primarily two things: a commercial product (sold to both military and civilian purchasers) and a weapon. The perceptions of a commercial product are key to its success. As a weapon, its ability to perform its function is key to its success. Mainstream sources are capable of making overall assessments of both aspects of the MCX, though I'll grant that firearms hobbyist and expert publication are sometimes better equipped to discuss technical issues or the MCX's operation. However they are not perfect either - they generally seem to overlook flaws or imperfections in the firearms they review. Felsic2 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well really it's kind of their job to note flaws or imperfections since they're consumer information products, and they certainly do that when a weapon is mechanically flawed (or just a stupid idea, in the first one's case). Herr Gruber (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be. The Truth About Guns is very much an exception. However, at least one editor here rejects their use,[1], which still leaving a a direct citation to them. So there's a disagreement about whether it's a reliable source or a "fanboy blog". Note that TTAG has run articles about the SIG MCX's use in the Orlando shooting, which brings us back to our topic.

I pinged @Thomas.W: at the start of this sub-thread because I specifically addresses some points he'd raised that I hadn't responded to before. I'm not sure if he still cares about this issue or not. Felsic2 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reception

A paragraph/section on the criticial recaption of this weapon got deleted without any discussion on this page, and with the inaccurate edit summary of "Remove again, ignoring guidelines and consensus".[2] There's no consensus or guidelines calling for the removal of that stuff. Maybe the editor just got trigger happy, pardon the pun. I'm putting it back. Felsic2 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable sources. Fanboy cruft is not a reliable source. Have removed. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No blogs were used as sources for this article. A couple of blogs which were quoted in a reliable source, Newsweek, were quoted. Both of those blogs are used many times on WP as sources: [3][4]. Even so, you deleted everything I wrote. Did you delete that by accident? If so, please restore it. If not, please explain your deletion of well-sourced material. Felsic2 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The editorial Newsweek is quoting is not an RS for firearms. RS is slightly more complicated than "if it's on a certain site it's automatically reliable regardless of content." Snopes is not an RS for firearms information either. As for the rest, while those are decent sources for reporting information about firearms, firearms articles don't generally have a reception section and quoting breathless praise for the weapon is just as bad as quoting people trying to ban it. We're not trying to sell people MCXs here. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Newsweek article is not marked an editorial and it does not appear to be one. It appears to be straight reporting. How are you making your determination that it's an editorial/opinion piece? Who says that Snopes is not a reliable source for firearms? It is considered a reliable source in general. Firearms are not space rockets beyond the understanding of the common man. The material from them simply summarizes other views. Many articles have reception sections, there's no reason why firearms should be an exception to how WP articles are written. I don't see any good reason here for why the material has been deleted. Felsic2 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It is an editorial, because it's based entirely on advancing a specific writer's opinion (that Sig-Sauer "cashed in by selling assault rifles to civilians" or that the MCX is "a product that (has) few practical applications other than killing humans at scale" is neither a statement of uncontentious fact or a quotation from an expert in a particular field). The writer in question is a layman with no expertise whatsoever on firearms (hence his not knowing that under US law it has not been legal to "sell assault rifles to civilians" since 1986), and so it does not qualify as RS. And there's no such thing as a "reliable source in general," we hew to experts and nobody is an expert on everything. See the fifth point in WP:NEWSORG:

• "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

In other words, in no case is a news organisation simply "reliable" without further question. And this is more of your usual "I didn't hear that" debating style; firearms articles do not have reception sections as a rule and I don't see any reason why this one should be an exception, particularly when it consists of the kind of soundbites you'd normally associate with advertising. The only articles that normally have a reception section are those on media regarding their critical reception, because it is widely agreed by expert sources that the opinions of media critics are notable (since for media they're the ones who are expert sources). Articles on machinery very rarely do. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not require a firearms expert to report that a particular product has been so popular it has aided the company that makes it:

• The line has been such a success that it helped revive the Sig Sauer company's business.[5]

You are saying that Newsweek is unreliable for this reported fact. I disagree. Also, please stop adding personal attacks to your responses. We're here to discuss content, not editors. Felsic2 (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust that guy to tell me which end of a gun went bang. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your beef with the reporting of Eric Markowitz? You are saying that Markowitz and Newsweek are unreliable for this assertion. I think that's wrong. I'll put a post at the WP:RSN to get wider input. Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the problem with that particular reference is it contains an error in just the title: it's been illegal to sell assault rifles to civilians in the US since 1986. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Between this page and talk: Assault rifle, the argument seems to go: there is only one correct definition of assault rifle. Anyone who uses a different definition does not qualify as a reliable source. Therefore, since the Newsweek headline refers to the semi-automatic version of a selective-fire weapon as an assault weapon it is not usable as a source for anything in the text. Do I have that right?

In case you didn't see it, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newsweek. Felsic2 (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thing is he doesn't call it an assault weapon, he calls it an assault rifle. That's a factually incorrect statement since "assault rifle" is a technical term with a specific definition. Vernacular usage is often incorrect in this manner (for example, it's common for laymen to refer to destroyers and cruisers as "battleships," IFVs, APCs and self-propelled guns as "tanks," treat "missile" and "rocket" as interchangeable, and so on) and trying to argue it's correct just because it's common would render us incapable of correcting any common misconception. I'd personally prefer aiming for a source that didn't contain an error like that if at all possible. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newsweek say that Newsweek is an acceptable source. To quote one participant there, " Facts such as company revenues, economic trends, what factors resulted in the rise and fall of a company's performance may all be cited to Newsweek. " If there's no further objection I'll restore the sentence. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you find one other source for it? While I was looking for one that didn't have needlessly controversial wording in the title, I couldn't find anyone else that asserted the same thing, and "SIG CEO says decisions made by SIG CEO revitalised company's finances" seems a little self-serving coming from a guy who's probably currently shopping around for a new job having just lost a lawsuit against the BATFE over the MPX carbine's "muzzle brake" and now possibly facing others. If you can't I still would be willing to accept it, it just seems a little odd. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't view this as an "exceptional claim". It's not surprising that a company has a particular product which sells well enough to change the company's fortunes. Newsweek is not a borderline source either. Of course, if we can find more information from more sources, then that's all the better. However details about the company's finances would belong in the company article. This sentence just says that the SIG MCX has been a big success. Felsic2 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I added, "The success of the MCX line has been credited with saving the SIG Sauer company from failure." That's clear, simple statement. We could attribute it to the CEO if that's an issue. Felsic2 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Assault rifle?

Although the weapon has a short enough barrel to qualify as a carbine, it would seem to meet the typical definition of an assault rifle. It's in the assault rifle category and included in the list of assault rifles. If that's correct, then we should say so in the body of the article or the infobox as well. If it's not correct, then we should remove it from the category and the list. Which is it? Felsic2 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The AR version is a carbine and so is the semi-auto standard version. Thus, it's more accurate. All three versions would be assault rifles if they were select-fire (well, the third only if you could get a military or LE purchaser interested in a silly range toy, admittedly) so it wouldn't be accurate to list it separately. You'll notice the M4 carbine is listed as a carbine in the infobox even though that is always an assault rifle, because we're describing what specific kind it is. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find that response confusing. If one of the variants is an assault rifle, let's say so in the article. If none of them are assault rifles, let's remove the category and listing. That's all I'm suggesting. Felsic2 (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That is mentioned in the article when it's said that select-fire versions are available. You don't have to crowbar in the words "assault rifle" to get that point across when it's already in the rifle's category list, and it would be hard to make it actually make sense since the carbine and SBR versions are both assault rifles in their select-fire configurations. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added a short sentence to the intro to clarify the point. Felsic2 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Black mamba

"Black mamba" seems to be a relatively common nickname, referred to by multiple sources.[6] Why are editors deleting that information? Felsic2 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is relatively common, which I doubt, it's still just trivia, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. If SIG officially name it the Black Mamba you can add it, but until then it doesn't belong in the article. Thomas.W ^talk 18:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If the material has multiple sources, why are we restricted to only using names approved by the manufacturer? In Rockwell B-1 Lancer, we report that "It is commonly called the "Bone" (originally from "B-One")." That's not an official name. Is it also trivia? Felsic2 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO the nickname shouldn't be in the B-1 article either, so if you remove it I won't revert you... Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And there's a nickname at B-52 as well. I don't see the value in deleting information. Can you explain? Felsic2 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And I see no reason to add pure trivia since Wikipedia explicitly isn't a random collection of information, but an encyclopaedia. So let's start by you explaining why you insist on having it in the article. And do not say that it should be in the article since there are sources mentioning it, because being sourced isn't by and of itself reason enough to include anything, it has to be encyclopaedic to. Thomas.W ^talk 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you call a common nickname for a commercial product "trivia". It isn't "random" information. As I have attempted to show, this is type of information is typically included in other Wikipedia articles about weapons. Elsewhere on this page, editors have appealed to that standard for excluding some information here. I objected, but I've been condemned for taking a contrary stand. So was I right that the contents of other articles don't determine the content of this article?

If a fact is relevant, neutral, and reliably sourced, then the presumption is that it should be included. See WP:PRESERVE. Felsic2 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having nicknames in other articles is totally irrelevant, since each article stands on its own, and WP:PRESERVE isn't relevant here either since you haven't proven that the nickname is relevant to the article, or even is in "common use" as you seem to claim. So how about trying to sway my opinion by giving a good and valid reason for why it should be included? Other than that there are nicknames in various other articles. Thomas.W ^talk 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I must say I've never heard of that nickname for the B-1 and without a source it seems more like crude vandalism than anything. Ok scratch that, Boeing themselves feature the name on their page about the B-1, it's pretty damn notable if even the manufacturer acknowledges it. BUFF on the other hand I've seen in the title of a book on the B-52. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's virtually axiomatic that the name or nickname of a product is relevant in an article about that product. You've accused me many times of "tendentious editing", but saying that I need to prove the relevance of a name to a product does not seem like a reasonalbe demand. I provided you with a Google link to many sources. Above, when I went to the trouble of copying those sources onto the page here, you dismissed them all, so I won't bother doing that again.

How do we decide that weight isn't a trivial matter too? Can you "sway my opinion" on that? Felsic2 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this nickname is trivial, though it does skip over the original inclusion's context (ie, that supposedly this is the rifle to "kill" the Honey Badger PDW) which ought to be included with it. We include things like the "Hitler's Buzzsaw" nickname of the MG42, for example. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That context was in the article until you deleted it.[7] Felsic2 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The impression I got when I took a quick look at the sources provided by the Google search you linked to was that one person on one occasion referred to a specific version of the SIG MCX (the MCX LVAW, i.e. "MCX Low Visibility Assault Weapon", a short-barreled suppressed variant available only to law enforcement and the military) as the Black Mamba, which of course would mean that it's not an established nickname for all flavours of the MCX. Thomas.W ^talk 21:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but nobody calls semi-auto M60s "pigs" either, so I don't think we can exclude it completely on that basis. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: could you please give the links that give you the impression that only one person has called this weapon the "Black Mamba"? I see multiple sources. Here are some examples:

• Affectionately called “The Black Mamba” by a growing number of people inside and outside of Sig, ...
• SIG MCX LVAW (Low-Visibility Assault Weapon) ‘Black Mamba’ Suppressed 300 Blackout (300BLK) Piston AR Assault SBR/PDW (Short Barreled Rifle/Personal Defense Weapon) Fired on Full-Auto and Semi-Auto with Subsonic and Supersonic Ammo During SIG SAUER New Media Writers’ Event
• On the range with Sig Sauer's MCX 'Black Mamba'
• Replacing the MP5SD with a rifle caliber weapon – that was the original concept behind the MCX ‘Black Mamba’ from Sig Sauer.
• Now, with the unveiling of SIG SAUER’s MCX line, even Kevin Brittingham (the man who championed the Honey Badger’s development) admits that his beloved creation has been bested by SIG’s engineers . . . The first time Kevin held one, he dubbed it the “Black Mamba” — the snake that could kill the Honey Badger.
• I hear SIG SAUER received some very good news today, so congratulations are in order for the performance of their .300 blk MCX ‘Black Mamba’.
• According to the book Guns of Special Forces 2001-2015, the MCX is known in military circles as the "Black Mamba" and was developed at the request of the US Army's special operations forces.
• Previously cited: Guns of Special Forces 2001 – 2015 By Leigh Neville

Added later:

• The black mamba.

Those are more than enough to show that this is verifiable information. Unless some policy prevents its inclusion, I'm going to restore the nickname to the article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Felsic2: It's right there, in the links you posted: "The first time Kevin held one, he dubbed it the “Black Mamba” — the snake that could kill the Honey Badger". And both the "Honey Badger" and the MCX version dubbed the "Black Mamba" (that is the MCX LVAW) are selective fire short-barreled rifles (with a suppressor as standard AFAIK) designed specifically for the US Special Forces, and not sold to civilians... Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so what about all the other sources? Don't they count too? Felsic2 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you check the other links you'll find at least a couple more who explicitly talk about the "MCX LVAW Black Mamba PDW", including Defensereview. Clearly showing that the nickname refers specifically to that version, and isn't a "generic" nickname for all versions of the MCX. Thomas.W ^talk 20:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that severl sources refer to the MCX as "Black Mamba", not just the "MCX LVAW Black Mamba PDW". Have you read them all? Since you agree that at least one variant has that nickname, I'll put there for the time being. Felsic2 (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: You never give up, do you? Your links clearly state that "Black Mamba" is a nickname that was given by one person to one specific version of the MCX, only, just as I said. So why do you insist on having it in the article as a nickname for all versions of the MCX, including the civilian ones? Is it because you believe it will make the MCX seem more "bad", and like more of a threat to all of humanity, than it is? It's a firearm, and all firearms are as bad as their users make them, so spend your time and energy on trying to make better background checks mandatory, instead of playing silly games on gun articles, like this one, and wasting other editors's time and energy here and on other gun articles... Thomas.W ^talk 21:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Felsic2 added "Black Mamba" to the article as I wrote the post above, so I didn't see that he specified that the nickname referred only to the MC LVAW, so I have struck parts of my post. Thomas.W ^talk 21:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No, only one source attributes the nickname to Kevin Brittingham. The other sources say things like "called “The Black Mamba” by a growing number of people". Why do I insist on adding it? Because it's relevant information about the topic of this article. Why do you obect so strongly? I don't see what background checks have to do with this discussion. Felsic2 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop playing silly games, your contributions clearly show that you're on a crusade against guns here. Which is why I posted a discretionary sanctions warning on your talk page a while ago. Thomas.W ^talk 21:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Felsic2 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reception, part 2

I have removed a new section added by Felsic2 where he claimed that "The success of the MCX line has been credited with saving the SIG Sauer company from failure", since that's not what the source says. What the source actually says is "Then, Cohen made a swift decision that would save the company and turn it into the No. 4 gun manufacturer in America: He turned the company’s sites onto "AR-style" assault rifles that would be marketed to civilians. A little more than a decade later, one of those assault rifles, a Sig Sauer MCX, was used by Omar Mateen to kill 49 people and injure dozens more at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando called Pulse". Considering SIG Sauer's financial problems in the early 2000s (the same article says that SIG Sauer in 2004 was "a company on the verge of bankruptcy and about two seconds away from imploding") it's obvious that the MCX that arrived on the market almost more than ten years later couldn't possibly have saved SIG from bankruptcy, what did that was the AR-derivatives that SIG launched in the mid to late 2000s (such as the SIG M400, SIG 516 and others). Making Felsic2's edit dishonest. Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We've been discusing this exact text for over a week. The exact text was discussed at WP:RSN. I asked on July 27 if there were any objection to posting it. That's honest, open editing. I tell you what - why don't you read the article at Newsweek and provide a summary of what it wasys about the MCX. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have other things to do, and haven't taken part in that discussion. Your edit is clearly not supported by the reference. Thomas.W ^talk 20:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

IF you don't participate then don't make accusations. What does the Newsweek source say about the MCX?

I'm changing the heading to remove the personal attack. Let's stick with neutral talk page headings, please. Felsic2 (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What has participation in the discussion got to do with anything? Your edit is clearly not supported by the source, and the right to challenge that isn't in any way connected to whether someone has taken part in the previous discussion or not. Thomas.W ^talk 20:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And "being discussed" isn't the same as there being a consensus for adding it, it's in fact obvious from the discussion above that there isn't a consensus supporting it. It's just a discussion about sources between two editors, a discussion that didn't lead to anything but just died. The last two posts were made by you, in the second to last you objected to Herr Grubers objections by saying that you didn't agree with him, and in the last post you just wrote that you had added it. In spite of there being no support at all for it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC) (This is a continuation of my post right above, so I'm adding it here)

OK, so you summarize the source then. Felsic2 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What the source says is that the AR-15 style rifles SIG launched in the mid to late 2000s saved the company from bankruptcy, a comment that since the MCX didn't arrive on the market until ten years later has very little if anything to do with this article. Thomas.W ^talk 20:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so what does the source say about the MCX? You haven't answwered that question, so I'll post some quotes:[8]

• The Sig Sauer MCX, which debuted in 2015, was met with particular acclaim. A military-style semi-automatic gun, the MCX has a sleek design—lightweight with a matte black finish. When it came out, it was compared to Advanced Armament's Honey Badger PDW, another popular AR-style gun. But it became so popular that some gun aficionados dubbed it the “Black Mamba,” meaning “the snake that could kill the Honey Badger.” The MCX was marketed extensively online with a highly produced YouTube series. The series features a gunman firing the MCX at various targets while traversing through a mock battlefield.
• The rifle drew raves from gun enthusiasts like Mike Searson from Ammoland.com for its design, modularity, and ease of use. “The SIG SAUER MCX rifle is truly the most modular black rifle ever designed by a firearms company and may unseat the venerable AR-15 as the most user-friendly rifle platform developed thus far,” he wrote. Nick Leghorn, a blogger on TheTruthAboutGuns.com, extols the MCX above all others. “The rifle just feels…right,” Leghorn writes. “Even with the can on the end, the gun balances well and is very easy to keep on target. The controls are crisp and clean, and the gun is really just a pleasure to fire.”
• Pledger, the former Sig Sauer executive, credits Fini with knowing how to reposition the company’s brand for the consumer market. “He really changed the marketing game for the company,” Pledger says. “He did an excellent job to help with better slogans, better mottos.” On its website, the company describes the MCX gun, which retails for under $2,000 to civilians, as "an innovative weapon system built around a battle-proven core."
• The MCX helped propel Sig Sauer, a 150-year-old company with Swiss roots, from an also-ran in the U.S. gun industry to the fourth-largest rifle producer behind Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Remington according to Shooting Industry magazine.
• Unlike fully automatic weapons or machine guns, which are banned for civilian use, the Sig Sauer MCX can discharge only one bullet per trigger pull, which is why it’s classified as a “semi-automatic” weapon, and therefore legal for the U.S. market. While this feature is intended to make the weapon potentially less deadly, some gun experts argue it has the opposite effect because semiautomatic fire is more accurate than automatic fire.

Those portions of text each refer directly to the MCX. Do you bject to me summarizing them for this article? Felsic2 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's late evening here, and I intend to log off soon, but the claim that "the MCX helped propel SIG from an also-ran to the fourth largest..." isn't worth much since all it says is that the MCX "helped", and it can't have been much of a help since the MCX has been available in gun shops for only about a year now (production started in 2015) and only a relatively small number of them have been made. So it's the older models that are behind SIG's increased sales, not the MCX. And the rest is just rave praise from gun enthusiasts, and not encyclopaedic (in the sense that it's an article about a technical thing, and should be kept technical, not full of praise and peacockery). And as for what the source (the article in Newsweek) says about the MCX the answer is "hardly anything", it's 95% SIG Sauer and the gun industry in general and 5% Omar Mateen. Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the meaning of "encyclopedic" n this context. Is there a Wikipedia policy definition? I see there are many "encyclopedias of guns".[9] Are we going by their content, or what?

What's the policy on citing gun enthusiasts? It seems like many of our articles cite their writings. Is Newsweek an unreliable source for quotations?

The SIG MCX is not just a "technical" thing any more than a iPhone 6 or a Sony Playstation are technical things. All of them are commercial products that are reviewed in magazines aimed at enthusiasts. Like those, if there'are POVs expressed about it we should report and summarize them. They belong in the article just as much as the dry reporting of specifications. Felsic2 (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The most useful parts seem to be:

• The MCX was marketed extensively online with a highly produced YouTube series. The series features a gunman firing the MCX at various targets while traversing through a mock battlefield.
• The rifle drew raves from gun enthusiasts like Mike Searson from Ammoland.com for its design, modularity, and ease of use.

I'd summarize those as:

• SIG Sauer promoted the MCX on Youtube with battlefield-themed videos. It is noted for its "design, modularity, and ease of use."

Does that look accurate? Felsic2 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2: What's unique about that? Posting flashy and eye-catching videos on Youtube is a very common way of marketing things nowadays, all kinds of things, and rave reviews is a common response to new products. We're not here to sell any of the stuff we write about, only to report essential and neutral information about whatever it is that is deemed notable enough to get an article here. Which is why the {{advert}} tag exists, and why promotional articles are routinely deleted. Thomas.W ^talk 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: By that measure, what's unique about producing a semi-automatic rifle? Or, sticking to this topic, what sources do we have for other firearms being marketed in this way? I have provided a source for this material - if you're saying that it's too common to mention then the burden is on you to establish that fact.

The text I propose is a neutral summary of what a reliable source says about this product. It is not promotional. If negative reviews can be found they should be included as well.

As for the template, here's the text from its description page:

• Add this to articles that need help from other editors because in whole or part they are advertisements masquerading as articles. For example, they may tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords.

I don't think any of those are issues with the proposed text. The page points to this policy: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Here's the relevant text:

• Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. ... See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability.

Note that text: All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. How many "independent, third-party sources" does this article have? I count one, The Truth About Guns. Another editor on this page has called it a "fanboy blog". Let's keep the Newsweek source and material - at least it shows that this product is notable. Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there's no further response, and since all the obejctions have been addressed, I'll restore this relevat, well-sourced, neutral information. Felsic2 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

None of the objections have been addressed, and there's no support here for your edit. Thomas.W ^talk 16:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Which policy-based objections haven't been addressed? Felsic2 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a Newsweek article. Newsweek curated it from Markowitz's site with his permission. There are technical and factual errors in the article. Sig Sauer could never accurately be described as an "also-ran" company. They produced all the firearms for the Swiss Military, supplied handguns to the FBI, Secret service, Navy SEALs, US Coastguard, DHS and hundreds of other agencies. Maybe until 2004ish years ago they were an "also-ran" with regard to rifles, but that has been changing for over a decade. Today they produce ammo, silencers, etc and are known for more than just their pistols. The MCX had little to do with that. The rifle has barely been out for a year. On its face the article is misleading, SIG has never been in danger of bankruptcy. Sure, you can say "other than that, it is accurate" but it is not the best source material. It could go in an external links/further reading section, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You're making a lot of assertions with nothing to back them up. The article isn't on Markowitz's website.

Markowitz is an award winning journalist which gives him a reputation for accuracy.[10]

The CEO of Sig Sauer said, in 2010, that the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. If you are accusing him of lying then you need to provide evidence. However, that's not part of what we're talking about here. You aren't disputing the text in question.

Newsweek, and the original publisher International Business Times, are reliable sources.

If there's nothing else, I'll restore this text: SIG Sauer promoted the MCX on Youtube with battlefield-themed videos. It is noted for its "design, modularity, and ease of use." Felsic2 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Random gun laws

• U. S. civilian ownership of rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches, i. e. BATFE Title II weapons, is, however, subject to federal restrictions, as well as being regulated by state laws.
• This version fits the US legal definition of a "handgun" in that it is only designed to be fired with a single point of contact with the shooter's body, though in the strictest terms it is a compact carbine rifle as it fires an intermediate round. The BATFE has warned users of weapons using the SIG SBX that shouldering a weapon fitted with the brace constitutes the making of a Title II NFA weapon, reversing a prior ruling that it did not.

Neither of these regulations seem to concern the MCX directly. One is unsourced, and the other has a source that doesn't mention the MCX. They are probably hundreds of laws and regulations which apply to the manufacture, sale, and use of this item. Everything from OSHA rules to sales taxes. Why are we including some but not others? A reasonable standard would be to only include those that mention the MCX, or where there's a secondary source that connects them.

Further, this comment:

• This version fits the US legal definition of a "handgun" in that it is only designed to be fired with a single point of contact with the shooter's body,[5] though in the strictest terms it is a compact carbine rifle as it fires an intermediate round.

Appears to be original research. Do we have a source which says the MCX Pistol w/ SBX fits this definition? Or are we making that determination ourselves? Felsic2 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's no source connecting them I'll delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Due weight for history of this firearm

• An MCX, legally purchased about a week earlier, was used by Omar Mateen to kill 49 people and injure 53 during the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

References

This text is supported by 14 references. It is neutral, relevant, and well-sourced. In fact, it has more sources than all the other text in the article. According to WP:NPOV, it belongs in this article. I have requested disptue resolution in two venues, but it has been rejected by editors. There is no legitimate reason to exclude it. No compromise or alternative text has been suggested. Since editors don't want to discuss this material I am going to post it to the article. Felsic2 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Long established consensus is that this is not to be included in firearm articles. Such cited references are entirely appropriate in the article about the shooting, itself. Forum shopping in different venues, going against long-standing existing editors' consensus, is not the way Wikipedia works. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus does not override Wikipedia-wide policies. The WP:NPOV calls for inclusion of viewpoints that have significant coverage in reliable sources. The only "forum shopping" about this issue has been to the two failed attemptes at dispute resolution, each done accordin to the WP:DR guidelines.

Do you have any policy-based reason to exclude this information? If not, I'll add it to the article. Felsic2 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use , which has already reached consensus over multiple years and for all firearms articles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay. Do you have any policy-based reason to exclude this information? Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a WikiProject consensus essay, arrived at between probably 200+ editors over the years. It is not an essay by but one user. The reason it came about was that if a criminal use is permitted in a firearm article, then all documented and cited self-defense uses would have to be included, too. The combination of all such criminal and self-defense usages of a firearm would become total anarchy. Should we put in truck articles how many times they have been used to run someone down? They have, you know, such as in Nice. Or how many times they have been used to pickup someone to provide them a free ride? It would be much the same. No, it is better to put all such details into the articles on shootings, or crimes themselves, not in the firearm articles or in the truck articles or in the pressure cooker articles, ad nauseum. This WikiProject essay was carefully crafted to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, and avoid having it degrade into becoming merely collections of trivia by item category (firearms, pressure cookers, trucks, airplanes (WTC), tanks, cars, knives, hammers, etc., among all possible items that can be misused. Seems perfectly logical to me, to try to have an actual encyclopedia, instead of a collection of trivia or lists. There are global WP policies regarding NOT A LIST, NO TRIVIA, and such. Or, do you propose to change these global WP policies, first? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make it a policy that applies to the whole website then follow the procedures for doing that. The deaths of 49 people, and injuries recently estimated to cost over $300 million, are not "trivia". Felsic2 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, read the WP:GUN section before citing it. It says that if a weapon has "its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine)", the standard has been met for inclusion. As you can see by the number of sources, this weapon has become much more famous for this crime than for anything else. Felsic2 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

But, no laws have changed. If they do later, then that would change the need for including any such gun law changes that were effected by the crime committed by this rifle. But, until that occurs, no. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No laws need to change. Re-read the essay. It's legislative change OR notoriety. Felsic2 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Recentism" can make something appear more important than it really is. An encyclopedia (Wikipedia) should not become a headline news scroll. If a year from now, the SIG MCX is still garnering extensive news reporting, then perhaps. But, just because there are a dozen or two articles on a major crime that happen to mention the rifle, that does not constitute notoriety. Just "recentism." Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

A year from now this firearm still will have been used in a mass shooting responsible for the deaths of 49 people. The proposed text is quite short. I don't see a "recentism" policy, just another essay. That policy does not say to ignore recent events, just "to be aware of balance and historical perspective." This weapon will always be known for this crime. But if its use in the crime is somehow forgotten in a year or ten years, then yes, go ahead and remove it at that time. Felsic2 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

But, this would be backwards to the "recentism" policy. Until such time the notoriety is more than a "flash in the pan", pardon the firearms pun, we do not yet know if the SIG MCX will actually achieve real notoriety. It could just be the SIG MCX rifle's "15 minutes of fame". If so, this single misuse will not cause any change in the legislation landscape. Nor would it cause any change in creating a new assault weapons ban. Much the same as the argument that an individual should not have have an article of their own in Wikipedia, in addition to the crime they committed, unless they would have merited such coverage and a standalone article before their crime was committed. The best I can recommend is, "Lets see." I am not categorically opposed to inclusion of criminal use if the notoriety actually does increase. If even someone today mentions the Tec-9, everyone still remembers it as the gun used at Columbine. The Carcano, on the other hand, is not well known today, except for actual firearms gurus who know it specifically. The change in mail order laws, though, definitely means even it warrants a mention in terms of its criminal use. Hence, the reason for the WikiProject Firearms criminal use policy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, there is no "recentism" policy. There is WP:RECENTISM, an essay. Essays aren't all bad, but they are just suggestions and advice. Let's look at one part of it, the "ten year test".

• In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?

I believe that, in ten years, the Orlando shooting will still be regarded as an important historical event. The connection of this firearm to that event will still exist. If I understand you correctly, you believe that in ten year the Orlando shooting will have dwindled into obscurity. So we have a difference of opinion on that.

Let me frame this another way. I've said why I think this material should be included. Perhaps I'm wrong. But why should it be excluded? Does it harm any one or any thing to include this material? I don't see how. It simply reportes information about a major occasion when this weapon was used in a historical event. It does not make the article too long. Even if it had only a couple of sources, instead of 14, it does not impact the article. So I don't see the argument for deleting it. Some of the arguments I have seen appear to me to be unsupportable. For example:

"Trivia". An event with over 100 casualties, and which is estimated to lead to over $300 million in medical costs, does not appear to meet any definition of trivia.

"Doesn't meet WP:GUN criteria". That's an advice page. While it may offer suggestions on when to include mentions of crimes in gun articles, it does not have the authority to ban them. Further, no one seems to agree on how to apply it consistently.

"Recentism". Another advice page. This firearm is new. How do we know it is notable? Do we wait ten years before deciding? No. Becasue a few sources refer to it, we have an article about. Even more sources talk about its use in the Orlando shooting. So if it is notable for anything, it would seem to be notable for the shooting, not for having a 16' barrel.

"Unencyclopedic". WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC This page seems to summarize the problem with that argument: Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted".

Did I miss any arguments?

Again, this is just a single sentence. Tell me how it would harm the article to include it. Felsic2 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Any other objections? Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I see no reason why this firearm's use in the Orlando shootings, which is well documented and sourced, should not appear in the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Screed?

Obviously, 33 words are not a "screed".[11] Even if they were, that would not be a legitimate reason for deleting material. Felsic2 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You can add it when there's a consensus among users here for adding it, but until then it stays off, whether it's sourced or not. PS. I suggest you read the entire page you linked to, not just the "simple definition" at the top, a definition that doesn't match what's said further down. Because "screed" has many meanings in English, one of them simply being "a piece of writing", regardless of length. Thomas.W ^talk 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for deletion. Are you saying that I have to get your approval before I can add it? And are you still refusing to participate in dispute resolution or mediation?

I've posted a request at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to get outside input on this. Felsic2 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's the other way around: if it's opposed and reverted you need a consensus for adding it. And don't start your usual long rants about what policies there are to support removing it, because we've had enough of that by now, do it the other way around instead, and show us what policies, if any, support your repeated addition of material that everyone else opposes. Thomas.W ^talk 19:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The core content policy of WP:DUE says to include information with weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This information has more prominence than the specifications, etc, much of it found only on the manufacturer's website. Even if the weight is somewhat discounted per WP:BALASPS, it still deserves some mention based on the overwhelming number of sources that talk specifically about the MCX's use in the Orlando mass shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And I and others claim the material you add violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS, in fact I'm the one who pointed you to those two, as arguments for not adding it. So it definitely does not support your repeated addition of material that everyone else opposes. Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And I replied to you at length at Talk:SIG_MCX#Break, to which you never replied despite repeated pings. It's hard to have a discussion if you won't participate except to revert. Should I post that response again here? Felsic2 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's my answer: In many, if not most, cases there isn't a simple and exact answer to what is undue or not, or what balanced aspects means. If this had been an article about a historical event and 90% of all peer reviewed academical research said A and 10% said something else, 90% of the article should be devoted to the mainstream view/interpretation and the others would get 10%, if even that, but it isn't, it's an article about a gun, seen as a tool by some and as the root of all evil by others, and there is no peer reviewed academical research, only a handful of articles written by gun nuts, all of them seeing it as just a tool, and a bunch of articles written by journalists who know nothing about guns (as evident by factual errors in the articles), are only interested in selling as many copies as possible (or get as many page views as possible) and wouldn't even have heard about the SIG MCX if Omar Mateen hadn't used one in Orlando, and in most cases also mention the SIG MCX only in passing in articles that are either about the Orlando shootings or about gun politics. And that's where consensus enters the equation, both previous consensus about these matters, documented in the essay at WikiProject Firearms, and whatever consensus is reached here. And the current consensus, both the previous discussions documented at the firearms project, and the discussions here, are against including a section about use in crime. Which is why I reverted you. Thomas.W ^talk 20:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If this section were framed as "history", which would be entirely appropriate, then it seems like it would meet your standards. Many firearms articles have "history" sections.

You criticize mainstream media as "... only interested in selling as many copies as possible (or get as many page views as possible) and wouldn't even have heard about the SIG MCX if Omar Mateen hadn't used one in Orlando..." First, Sig Sauer is only interested in selling merchandise, so I don't see the point of comparison. Second, the whole point is that, outside of the firearms community, no one would have heard of this weapon if not for its use in a notorious crime. That's a reason to include it, not exclude it.

Consensus is fine so long as it is based on WP policies and guidelines. But if it's just about "IDONTLIKEIT", then maybe we need to look deeper. I see that there has been a lack of consensus on some pages to include material like this. BUt that's different. So long as there's no consensus one way or another, it's legitimate to keep working to find one.

Can you suggest any alternative text which would meet your objections? Felsic2 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see what SIG Sauer's interest in selling their products, an interest they share with all companies, has to do with this discussion, since they're only used as a source for technical details, and "IDONTLIKEIT" seems to be a good summary of your views on guns. And, no, I'm not going to suggest changes to the text since that could be seen as me supporting including it. My general view on this is that articles about technical things should be purely technical, and that gun politics (and this is about US gun politics, which is why you're interested in these articles) should be kept in articles about US gun politics, and not clutter up articles that are aimed also at English speakers in the rest of the world, readers who in most cases have zero interest in domestic US matters. Thomas.W ^talk 21:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The "technical thing" in question is a weapon. Many articles on weapons include material on their use in combat. For example, M1 Abrams. Do you think that article, and all those alike it, should exclude everything beyond the mere technical details of its contruction? That would seem opposed to the idea of an encyclopedia.

The "technical thing" is also a commercial product. Saying that the manufacturer should be the main source, and that we shouldn't include material on how the product fits into society at large, seems biased in favor of the manufacturer. Should we exclude the information on how the Big Mac can cause heart disease? Or on how it is advertised? That would seem inconsistent with the idea of an encyclopedia either.

I don't see this as a US issue. People in other countries, including the United Kingdom and Norway, purchase and use guns as well. I see no evidence that their interest in how guns are used is different than that of people in the US. That said, this is a US-made gun.

I don't think that the perpetrator of the Orlando shooting was thinking of gun politics when he committed his crime. But excluding this information is just as much a political decision as including it.

I think that this article would be best srvered by including all available informatiom, with weight reflective of reliable sources, than to censor information which some think may portray the subject as, to use your term, "evil". Guns are objects, neither good nor evil. 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You've already tried that angle, by adding the contested material to the article under the heading "Operational use", but we're not discussing "use in combat", which refers to lawful use of weapons by military personnel, we're discussing "use in crime", which refers to illegal use of weapons by criminals. An attempt that failed, so there's no point in trying that again. And people in the UK, Australia and most if not all other English-speaking countries don't buy and use the SIG MCX, AR-15, AK-47 or other similar rifles, since they can't be legally owned by the general public there. Thomas.W ^talk 22:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I'm having trouble following what you're saying about non-American readers.

• My general view on this is that articles about technical things should be purely technical, and that gun politics (and this is about US gun politics, which is why you're interested in these articles) should be kept in articles about US gun politics, and not clutter up articles that are aimed also at English speakers in the rest of the world, readers who in most cases have zero interest in domestic US matters.
• And people in the UK, Australia and most if not all other English-speaking countries don't buy and use the SIG MCX, AR-15, AK-47 or other similar rifles, since they can't be legally owned by the general public there.

First, I think that the Orlando shooting received a lotta attention around the world. I don't believe that English speakers in countries around the world are uninterested in it. Do you have any sources to substantiate that? Second, if non-American readers can't buy this weapon, then why would they be interested in details about specifications, etc? It seems to me that they'd be more interested in general material, like how it has been used in the real world. However I don't think we can really base our editing on what we think readers will be interested in. Basing it on what reliable sources say seems like a better plan. Felsic2 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus of Felsic2, Darouet, and myself seems to be to include the shooting in a history section for this rifle. That seems to also be the consensus of the discussion about this on the NPOV noticeboard. I'm not really seeing how you can say that my edit violated consensus Thomas.w.TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion about the "See also" section. The deletion of a mere link there seem unwarranted. What's the basis for opposing even that minimal mention? Felsic2 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Which versions of the MCX does this article cover? Just the 16" carbine or the whole MCX product line? Like the different trim levels on a model of car?

Is there another article for the MCX pistol and the MCX sbr?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point about this and other firearms. There's a similar issue at talk:AR-15. Personally, I assume that this and other articles cover the whole product line being described. In this case, it's hard to say for sure which is the 'original' weapon and which are the variants. Felsic2 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Design provenance

Does anyone happen to know or have sources stating whether this design originated from SS Switzerland or SS US?TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to indicate that it was designed in the US. http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/sns-bc-us--nightclub-shooting-weapon-20160616-story.html TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant?

Should the article mention the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, which was committed with a SIG MCX? 01:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Gibbons-neff, Thomas (14 June 2016). "The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn't change much". Washington Post. Kaye, Randi (21 June 2016). "A closer look at the Orlando shooter's weapon". CNN – via WWLP. Markowitz, Eric (27 June 2016). "Omar Mateen's Gun: How Sig Sauer Cashed In By Selling Assault Rifles To Civilians". International Business Times. Follman, Mark (13 June 2016). "This Is the Assault Rifle Used by the Orlando Mass Shooter". Mother Jones. Foley, Ryan J. (16 June 2016). "Rifle used in Orlando shooting was designed for military use". Associated Press. Peters, Justin (14 June 2016). "Omar Mateen Had a "Modern Sporting Rifle"". Slate. Zarroli, Jim (13 June 2016). "The Orlando Killer's Weapon Of Choice Was 'The Ultimate Hunting Rifle'". NPR. Staff (13 June 2016). "Gun shop owner: Orlando shooter passed background check". CBS News Crimesider. Jamal, Sana (15 June 2016). "Sig Sauer MCX – the weapon that caused 100+ causalities in Orlando massacre". International Relations Insights & Analysis. "Orlando killer's gun popular through marketing and ease of use". The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC. 14 June 2016. Hauer, Sarah (1 July 2016). "Was gun used by Orlando shooter a 'weapon of war'?". Politifact. Picchi, Aimee (15 June 2016). ""America's rifle": The marketing of assault-style weapons". CBS News. Sherfinski, David (20 June 2016). "What constitutes 'automatic' weapons at issue after Orlando". Washington Times. Stern, Mark Joseph (20 June 2016). "Nazi Roots, EU Violations, and Mass Shootings". Slate.

• Yes. Numerous sources discuss the use of this weapon in the shooting. See #Due weight for history of this firearm for a partial list. WP:GUNS#Criminal uses is a Wikiproject essay, but does not determine article content. WP:GUNCRIME discusses some common arguments against inclusion. Firearms articles commonly include use of firearms by police and military units, so WP:NPOV suggests that we should be neutral about including notable illegal uses as well as the legal ones. The Orlando shooting was the worst in modern US history, and it will not fade from significance any time soon, so WP:RECENTISM does not apply. The mention can be brief, so WP:COATRACK should not be a problem either. Felsic2 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• comment: One event, even a notable event, does not make a trend. If we are to mention Orlando, I would hope we would also mention all the SIG MCXs that have been sold which have not been used in mass shootings. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just like the article about someone who committed a crime covers all of the times that person didn't commit a crime? Or do you just mean that we should be careful, when including this, not to make it seem like it isn't used for any lawful purposes or somesuch? If the latter, then surely, but aspects of the subject should be presented in proportion to which they're covered in the body of reliable sources about the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - It's hard to argue against WP:WEIGHT with so many sources about the gun in relation to the crime (not just mentions of the gun in articles about the crime, but also articles about the gun because of the crime). So as a matter of general practice, it seems in line with policy to include. I'm sure there are people who, every time a gun is specified in a crime, want to add it to the respective article, and there's an argument to be had about to what extent specific uses of the gun is part of the gun as an encyclopedic subject. In this case, however, it looks like it makes sense. (I'm here via the thread at WP:NPOVN). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Clearly an attempt to broadcast more ideological views by the usual anti-gun agenda pushers. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)