Talk:Ruger Mini-14

Rfc: Add major incidents to article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Ruger Mini 14 article add this text? CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Ruger Mini 14 was used in these incidents:

• 1986 FBI Miami shootout, resulted in FBI agents and law enforcement agencies switching to use of more powerful guns and body armor for official use in the USA.
• École Polytechnique Massacre, resulted in the Canada Firearms Act, 1995 and faster incident police response procedures in Canada for similar incidents.

I added criteria, the 2 results per: WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use. I did not think it was necessary to repeat the incident details within the 2 articles.

The article has a popular culture section, with a use on a TV series. No incidents or other use are in the article.

There are sources in the 2 incident articles, I repeated some sources and added additional sources here:

Comment added: I tried to model my proposed edits based on what found written in these articles. Please suggest if you think the proposed wording could be better written. Thank you CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Carcano#Kennedy_assassination_rifle, 2. SIG_MCX#Criminal_use, 3. Bushmaster XM-15 Notoriety, Sandy Hook and aftermath, Legality, 4.Pressure_cooking#Use in Terrorism, 5. Ammonium_nitrate#Terrorism

Survey

• Yes Wikipedia includes important incidents about a subject.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• No - Think mentioning the weapon belongs on the incident article, not on the weapon article. Otherwise it seems too open to becoming a WP:SOAPBOX. It also seems to not be justified by due WP:WEIGHT either, since a quick bing of the article title is not visibly showing these incidents anywhere in the first 10 pages -- mostly I'm seeing coverage is on the weapon design, or police and hunter magazine articles about it. And I don't see 'they mention Ateam' as a good argument. (Theres a whole IMDB list but ... that's not a good reason to put them in this article.) Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If you review the number of times this weapon is mentioned in mainstream newspapers and magazines, I think you'd find that criminal uses are far more prominently reported than the relatively trivial information, such as coatings and dimensions, that make up the bulk of this article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• NO...CuriousMind knows full well that the inclusion of this information has been talked to death and rejected every single time. CuriousMind knows full well that every single time that this information has been added to the article it has been reverted. And, yet here we are again. So much for "I did not mean to irritate you or anyone; and have no agenda, my interest is building an encyclopedia." Especially, when it appears that CuriousMind wants to add similar information to not only a dozen different firearms articles, but also several different automotive articles as well. No agenda here, no pattern, nothing to see, move along.--RAF910 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:RAF910, Please assume good faith. Your response I think is not appropriate and not collaborative. My proposal is not the same edits. to recap: I added the edits, after seeing discussion on the project page. After your revert, and you stating mistakenly they are the same as a previous edits, I used the RFC as the next discussion step. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sir, your edit history speaks for itself. No matter how you change or rearrange the words, the content remains the same. Now it appears that you want to add the same content to mudslides and fires as well. And you still claim there is no agenda here, no pattern, nothing to see, move along. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Advocacy. Especially, the Defenses section. Who knows, like a Pokémon Go player, maybe you just got caught or carried away in the moment and you don't realize that you've crossed the line.--RAF910 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Raf910 I consider your statements harassment.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes per CuriousMind01. Am surprised that anyone would object to the inclusion of an important impact made by the subject of the article. (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in random requests for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• No per RAF910. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• No. No major changes in firearm laws occurred due to the criminal use(s). No change in notoriety occurred. Hence, no need to include in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That's incorrect. From École Polytechnique massacre: "The incident led to more stringent gun control laws in Canada. It also introduced changes in the tactical response of police to shootings, changes which were later credited with minimizing casualties at the Dawson College shootings."
  • Further, you're creating a standard that has no basis in Wikiedia policies and guidelines, a standard that no other material in this article could meet. Felsic2 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The "more stringent gun control laws in Canada" consisted of only requiring more paperwork. No existing guns were confiscated, nor their possession rescinded from owners. Hardly a major change. The tactical response of police to shootings is also not a change in gun laws, either. As I said, no major changes in firearm laws occurred due to the criminal use(s). Besides, police change their tactical responses regularly, as better ways of operation are found, or simply for lessening the predictability of their responses to criminal acts. Lets keep on topic, with regards to gun laws. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get the need for a "major change" to have been made in order to mention something in a Wikipedia article? That's not the standard we use for anything else in this article. This material is well-supported by numerous reliable sources. NPOV says we should include it on a WEIGHT basis. Felsic2 (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• No/yes. No to the content as written and in general I would oppose such content as we don't have reliable sources about the subject of this article making the link for us and thus establishing weight for inclusion. However, in this case we have a reliable source, American Rifleman, writing about the rifle vs about the FBI shooting event that mentions the event and making the connection. Thus a RS article about the subject of this article felt it was worth mentioning. I'm not saying how the FBI shooting should be included but I feel there is sufficient weight in that case. I have not seen weight for the others. Springee (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, per User:RAF910. Do we include information about the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt on the Nissan Pathfinder article? If the Ruger had a unique quality or attribute that contributed to the events in question then it might be grounds for inclusion. But, as the Times Square incident most likely would have been carried out with a different vehicle if the Pathfinder didn't exist, so would these incidents if the Ruger didn't exist so we do run the risk of soapboxing and undue weight. --Guiletheme (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

If the Nissan Pathfinder has at the nexus of a cultural and political debate on restricting access to that model of car like the Ruger Mini-14 was in Canada post-École Polytechnique, then yes it would be included. Gun control debates are real societal issues that get plenty of coverage from reliable sources, and that coverage of the political debate, which sometimes focuses on specific models, does convey encyclopedic significance and are not just mere trivia. For example, as comparison the Bushmaster XM-15 article mentions the Beltway and Sandy Hook attacks. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, at least in the case of École Polytechnique, which had a profound influence on the debate around Canadian gun laws and acquired notoriety like the Bushmaster XM-15 after the Beltway sniper attacks and Sandy Hook, both of which are mentioned in that article. This notoriety provides encyclopedic relevance and is part of the history of the weapon. This article by Macleans directly compares the two guns and details the politcal and legislative debate around the Ruger Mini-14 [1]. Many other articles directly reference the gun in the context of the attack and debates on gun control nearly 30 years later [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. This book on Canadian spree killings also references the Ruger Mini-14 five times in the three pages of coverage it devotes to the incident [7], [8]. These sources show that the argument that "there was no change in notoriety" to be false.

As for claims that no changes in Firearm Laws occurred, I would invite editors to read the second half of this article, which details how the Ecole Polytechnique massacre changed Canadian gun laws. [9]. The fallout of the legislation reached the Supreme Court last year, 26 years after the massacre. [10] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. According to WP:NPOV, all significant viewpoints should be included. Also, the weight they're given in an article should be proportional to the number and prominence of the published sources. Information about the use of this weapon in widely reported crimes is much more significant material than the various special editions, with their resepctive weights and measures. The latter is of interest only to collectors while the use of the weapons in real life is of interest to the general public. If this material is excluded than everything of less significance should be deleted as well. Felsic2 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC) I added notifications to Talk:1986 FBI Miami shootout and Talk:École Polytechnique massacre. Felsic2 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes per Patar knight and Felsic2, who make complete arguments I cannot really improve upon. If WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are satisfied, there's no reason to not cover reported impact from a subject, no matter what that subject is. The idea that any particular weapon or tool would be excluded from this long-held Wikipedia approach seems preposterous. (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in random requests for comment) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes enough weight has been given by editors in this discussion to show that it has some significance to notoriety, and it is well sourced. StarHOG (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes this is a comprehensive article (nice job everyone). There is a WP:WEIGHT problem with extensive discussion of the gun specs and appearances on TV programs and movies and nothing about well-known and significant real-life incidents involving the gun. (uninvolved editor summoned by feedback service) ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

added section CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1.Miguel Escopeta re: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred", The Canada Firearms Act, 1995 was enacted. You seem knowledgeable in these subjects. What does "major" mean here? Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlike in Australia, where firearms had to be turned in after their shooting, which was a major change, existing owners in Canada were permitted to keep their firearms, provided they filled out paperwork. A different outcome altogether. It was not considered a major change in terms of continued possession. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC) User:Miguel Escopea, Thank you for your response.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Miguel Escopea "major' is subjective, I think the Canada Firearms Act is major per the sources provided and Patar Knights sources, and per the guideline("major" is not stated)"legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage" applies. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: "No major changes in firearm laws occurred" is not a standard based on any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If it were, this article would be much, much shorter. 19:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It actually is a standard based on the WP:Firearms guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use that has stood the test of time for many years now. The goal of that guideline is to avoid having firearm articles becoming littered with every "good use" and "bad use" mentions of day to day crime. "On January 1st, 20XX, Joe Schmo successfully used a BRRP MK II to defend himself in his garage." That guideline also states that specific firearms that become widely notorious because of their usages, and result in major changes in gun laws, should include mention of the usages in the firearm article. For example, the Carcano rifle used in the JFK assassination, the pistol used in the Columbine shooting, etc., that resulted in major changes in both gun laws and in public perceptions. The guideline has long been used on Wikipedia. It is also meant to keep firearms articles from being a major magnet for attracting POV warriers, such as yourself. Seems very reasonable to me. (unlike you, I actually sign my comments) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks, such as calling me a "POV warrior".

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use is not a guideline. It is an advice page. WP:ADVICEPAGE. Further, it does not say that the standard is a "major change". It says, "For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage..." There has been legislation changed as a result of this criminal use. If you actually followed that advice, you'd support inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I submitted a request for closure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Request_for_Administrator_to_Close_RfC_Talk:Ruger_Mini-14.23Rfc:_Add_major_incidents_to_article The Legobot removed the RFC template CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "TOC limit; rm nn variants from infobox; c/e; rm excessive external links -- official site is sufficient; rm ext links from body. Please let me know if there are any concerns." --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Primary souces

The page contains a number of citations to ruger.com. I tagged the article accordingly; please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hidden Text

I previously removed hidden text from the Criminal Use section:

"READ FIRST: Entries in this section must abide by the criteria in WP:Firearms#Criminal_use."

This is counter to Wikipedia policies and practice. There is no such requirement to follow the recommendations at WP:GUNS, and the outcome of the 2016 RFC was to include details of shootings in the Criminal Use section for this article.

The hidden text was recently added to the article again. Please discuss here. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Remove: Such a note is not helpful nor needed, as it points to the project essay, which does not over-ride the project-wide policies and guidelines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: The project guide is helpful and founded in proper policies and not inconsistent with WP's overall goals. It is meant as a first line to prevent recurrent problems such as this. The current entries are both inline with that project guideline AND WP's policies. I agree with Fnlayson's restoration of the link. Those that want to discuss or take exception to the guide should do this at a centralized location such as WT:Firearms to involve editors that were involved in that consensus to have the guide. No one here has shown what is supposedly wrong with the guidelines.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The relevant factors would be Wiki policies/guidelines and consensus on this article's talk page. It might be appropriate to inform editors of existing consensus, but consensus can change and nobody should be discouraged from boldly contributing or reopening the discussion as they see fit. I looked over the discussion which you linked and I don't see anything about the proposal that we should be trying to prevent. The edit was challenged, discussed and withdrawn because the editor considered it to be a lost cause. These discussions sometimes feel tedious or repetitive but they are part of the collaborative editing process. This is affirmed by a recent closign statement at Arbcom. –dlthewave ☎ 18:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The consensus further up the page is about adding a couple of entries. It has nothing to do with stating that entries should (or should not) be inline with the guideline. The current entries and the guideline are aligned with each other at the present so you are trying to make an argument that is flawed from the onset. That consensus has nothing to do with this proposal although you seem to think that it does. Nothing restricts entries from being made. The underlying policy that shaped the guideline is WP:DUE. What entry did you or someone else try to make that fell short of the guideline which has lead to this challenge? Why is that comment considered an obstacle?

What you missed in what I linked is that entries shouldn't become a content fork of those subjects which they were prone to do. Adding a memorial plaque was trying to grow an entry in that direction.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: The note points to the relevant project (WP:Firearms) guidelines. The wording can be adjusted to clarify if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - Wikiprojects don't dictate content policy and editors are not required to get approval at a central location where participants have strong points of view about a controversial subject. The hidden comment conveys a false sense of authority which would tend to have a chilling effect on editing.- MrX 🖋 13:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)