Talk:Colt AR-15

You wouldn't have an article about the Ford Bronco without mentioning O.J. Simpson

So why do we refuse to mention the high profile shootings performed with this rifle? Nobody blames Ford for making the Bronco, but it's still relevant as one of the highest profile uses of the vehicle. Likewise, regardless of whether you blame gun manufacturers for mass shootings, these are the highest profile instances where the Wikipedia-reading public is exposed to the Colt AR-15. 98.229.65.91 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The info that you added has been repeatedly rejected by your fellow editors. It was also factually wrong. The Colt AR-15 was not used in those shootings.--RAF910 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bronco Opposers would probably suggest that there may have been a slight motor modification to the said Bronco, rendering it not an offical Bronco and therefore it's page may not include the O.J. Simpson case. It comes down to trying to be exteremely specific, if you're lost for a real reason to deny an edit and calling it factual. The masses visiting this page however, do not care for that level of detail. If it would be important to some, a disclaimer about the differences would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpy dimpy (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The masses visiting the page was because the redirects were screwy, with AR-15 going here instead of the AR-15 style rifle. Your comparison with motor is also incorrect, it would be closer to if another company made a clone of the bronco without permission from Ford. Since the Colt AR-15 was not used, this would not be the right article. For example we cover the Port Arthur Massacre here because that was a Colt. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, OJ Simpson probably shouldn't be included in the Bronco article as, relatively speaking, the OJ Simpson incident is still little more than a footnote in the history of that vehicle. Including that in the Bronco article adds undue weight to the role of that incident in the history of the Ford Bronco, and a simple reference to the Bronco used within any articles about OJ Simpson or this specific incident, and a link from those articles to the Ford Bronco page, would do a far better job of maintaining appropriate weight while including easily accessed information for people searching for this info. A specific article on the white Ford Bronco in question would make more sense than including this information in the general Ford Bronco section. The same logic applies here including the idea of not adding undue weight by covering footnotes in articles that cover years and millions of vehicles worth of information.Syr74 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Port Arthur Massacre

Why is there a section about the Port Arthur Massacre? I understand that the pages related to the AR-15s have been the topic of strong feelings and intense debate, but it seems strange to include this one tragedy in the article. Was this the only mass shooting where a Colt brand AR-15 was used? Is (are) the author(s) trying to make a point about gun control? It just seems odd. There are already other pages that discuss the AR-15 and its use by mass murders. I'm just curious what the reasoning was is all. ForeverZero (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Main reason justifying inclusion would be the fact that the massacre led to a significant law Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the section be renamed to something more general like "Use in mass shooting" --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The section is about that specific incident. Not general mass shootings and only that one because that is one of the only notable ones that directly involved the Colt version. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what ForeverZero mentioned above and add to it; why is there currently a section about the Port Author Massacre since we obviously do not have editor consensus regarding inclusion of the same? In fact, the number of editors who oppose the inclusion of the Port Author massacre within this article dramatically outweighs support for the same here, so why is this section still included? If there is something I am missing regarding support I cannot see I'm glad to listen to it, but right now it looks like we have editor consensus to remove this but it remains in this article? Syr74 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that one is special because of WP:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use, which is about the only mass shooting that does focus on the specific make and model and had an impact on gun laws in that country. PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Syr74 we have a overwhelming consensus on multiple concurrent discussions to remove the Port Author Massacre content. It should be removed immediately. Also, I should point out PackMecEng has repeatedly rejected WP:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use in favor of local consensus, on multiple talk pages claiming that it violates multiple WIKI polices. Therefore, I find it ironic that he supports said section now. --RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose the removal, and do not recognize the Project Firearms piece as anything more than someone's essay, and one that appears to be in conflict with core policy. As such, it's not binding, and probably should be an MfD target in the near future. Geogene (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I do think that essay is not the best answer, but in this situation it addresses directly the concern of the section. I oppose general "mass shooting" sections being plastered in every dang article which was previously the goal on certain editors. But in this specific situation it deals with the Colt alone which caused a major impact for that country. Which I have been consistent on throughout this article, the general AR article and the RFC. Heck look at my talk page recently, according to some I am a pro gun/NRA tendentious editor POV pusher crap. But that incident was significant to the Colt AR-15 and the one sentence pointing to the main article for that incident seems appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree and oppose in this instance because this incident was only significant with regard to the Colt AR-15 family of rifles within Australia itself, and Australia was relatively insignificant to both Colt and the AR-15 even prior to the massacre or the legal aftermath that followed. The vast majority of Colt AR-15 rifles are sold within the United States and both the rifle and American owners were hardly, if at all, effected by that event. If a Chevy Tahoe rolls over due to a tire defect on the Isle of Man and causes legislation in that country that restricts the type of tires that can be used on suv's would we realistically include that in the Chevy Tahoe article? Probably not, because the incident had virtually no effect on the vehicle overall or any of the areas where the vast majority of those vehicles actually are. Does it deserve it's own article with a link? Maybe. The Port Author massacre deserves an article and has one, it also has a significant section in the Australian gun control article, but the event itself did not have a significant effect on the overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners, the country within which the vast majority of those AR-15 owners reside, or the manufacturer itself. As such, I don't see how we can legitimately argue for the inclusion of the same as anything more than a 'see also'. It just doesn't warrant inclusion here.Syr74 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, that it was a localized incident that in the long view did not substantially affect Colt itself. But I would argue the gun ban in Australia, was a big deal regardless of Colt. Something still brought up to this day as a supposed model the USA should follow, even if it is completely unrealistic for here. It was also pretty much the only event that the specific model of AR was something significant, the country of origin does not really matter in this situation other than it is a large, western, and well developed country. To go back to the car example you used, take a look at the Ford Bronco article and it's mention of OJ Simpson. I have not looked at the history of that article but I would imagine similar arguments have been made there as well. I will say I am not sure it should have it's own section heading, but other than the history section I am not sure where it would go. Are you suggesting that perhaps in the shooting specific article that it just link here from there and no mention here? PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think a see also here would be fine but, outside of this, I don't think it warrants a mention here. I mentioned below in response to another editor that the Colt AR-15 was critically influential in the development of the 5.56 NATO and derived .223 Remington cartridges and their subsequent existence in any meaningful way, if at all, as mainstream market and military offerings, but that part of Colt AR-15 history doesn't have a sub-section here. The cartridges get a simple mention as the rounds the AR-15 is chambered for, some minor details about the same, and then the article moves on. Arguably there is less information about those cartridges than there is about the Port Author Massacre, and I think this shows just how much undue weight applies to Port Author here. The significance 5.56 NATO has had globally could be talked about 500 years from now with some regularity in history books, literally. This is the standard NATO cartridge, it has been for decades, and it has fought in countless wars on every Continent. The number of deaths that cartridge has cause unquestionable number in the millions, but it doesn't even get a blurb regarding the significance of the AR-15 in the development of the same within this article. Why? Because it shouldn't....a link to a 5.56/.223 article that does contain that info will do. As tragic as Port Author was there are more significant items that aren't included in this article as a sub-section, and for good reason including readability, Port Author shouldn't have one either. Syr74 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with PackMecEng. This is actually one of the frustrations I think many have with gun articles. The crime may be significant but is it significant with respect to or in context of the gun? I recently gave an example of the Chevy Caprice and it's use in the DC sniper attacks. A well subscribed RfC said no, the crime shouldn't be part of the car's page [[1]]. Interestingly the Bushmaster page does contain a link to the gun's use in that crime. It's interesting and perhaps logically confused that consensus was strongly against discussing the crime in the car article but the same isn't true for the associated gun. Springee (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Add this sentence on the Colt AR-15 page on the header

The Colt AR-15 and similar rifles are one of the most popular civilian rifles in the United States

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

This article states that the AR-15 is a variant of the M16, while the opposite is actually true. The M16 is actually the military AR-15 adaptation. W EXPRESS TRAIN (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential RfC on Port Arthur Massacre

Regarding this removal, [2], should this content be presented to the editor community as a formal RfC? The local consensus is unconvincing. The content is reliably sourced, and I don't see an oppose rationale, except a (nonbinding) essay at Project Firearms. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We have already had 3 Rfc on the Port Arthur Massacre, mass shootings and criminal use on this very talk page over the last two months. Your fellow editors have rejected the content with overwhelming consensus. Please read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--RAF910 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There wasn't enough participation for any of those to be meaningful. Most of the !votes were IDONTLIKEIT from project firearms regulars, most of which appear to violate core policy in favor of local consensus. The point of an RfC is to get widespread participation from a cross section of editors. Geogene (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, that a source is well-referenced doesn't make it pertinent to this article. The event occurred, I've seen nobody dispute that as yet, it simply doesn't warrant an actual section within this specific article. This is so because the significance of the event is found within the event itself and what that event led to in terms of firearms law within Australia, and as such is appropriate within articles that cover those issues, the Port Arthur Massacre and Australian gun control laws, and it should be noted that the event is already fully covered by inclusion within the same. To include that event in detail within both of those pages, and then here again as well, adds undue weight to the event with regard to how it influences the Colt branded AR-15 family as a whole. For example, the vast majority of American Colt AR-15 owners, which by far constitutes the vast majority of Colt AR-15 owners globally, most likely don't even know what Port Arthur actually is and the Port Author massacre had little to no real affect on their lives or the production, sale, and ownership of these weapons outside of Australia. To attempt to include that, as an actual article sub-section, in all three articles adds undue weight to this event and could give readers the impression that there is an agenda, or even a lack of good faith, in editing these articles. None of us can decide that we don't like editorial consensus based on what we personally believe, we have to respect the community and, if anyone feels that there is an issue with that process, take appropriate action to get that situation reviewed and, if necessary, resolved. I personally think that the argument that there wasn't enough participation in that referendum is inaccurate, since that issue had more votes than prior issues regarding this page did. As such, I would suggest that those changes either need to be made in accordance with the overwhelming percentage of editors who did vote, or submitted for reviewSyr74 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with the assertion that Australia is irrelevant and only America matters, and I think that that is a good example of why there should be a referendum on this that's broader than the regular firearms editors. Also, it's kind of interesting that you wrote this: could give readers the impression that there is an agenda, or even a lack of good faith, in editing these articles. If you're worried about the appearance of bad faith agenda pushing, you should read this [3], this [4], this [5], and this [6]. There is no evidence that mentioning mass shootings would discredit this article, that's just speculation on your part, but there are already several published criticisms of this article in reliable sources that cite it as an example of bad faith editing because we don't mention mass shootings. Geogene (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Who said that Australia doesn't matter? I said that Australia is not now and never was a significant market for the AR-15 which is factual, and as such events which led to changes to the legality of semi-automatic rifles in that locality are not significant enough in the history of the AR-15 rifle overall to warrant inclusion as a sub-section here when there are at least two other areas where this is covered in detail. That's an accurate statement. I'm not worried about the inclusion of mass shooting discrediting anything here or elsewhere, there are plenty of articles that either focus on the same, mention the same, and which include the role the AR-15 has played in the same. As an internet reference we need to present complete, balanced, and easy to read information to people who visit the site, and including a sub-section in every article that might apply is only going to serve to create clutter and add undue weight. The event simply isn't significant enough to the history of the AR-15 as a whole to warrant inclusion here, not when there is a detailed article about the Port Author Massacre and a detailed sub-section within the history of Australian gun control. Genuinely, I don't think this is an appropriate place for this sub-section when a link would do the job and, realistically, prevent nobody from accessing the information which you are concerned about easily and readily. On the contrary, I believe inclusion here as a sub-section could, and likely will, give many readers the impression that an agenda is being pushed whether that is the intent or not, and for a wiki that is problematic. As such I'm recommending the section be deleted and a 'see also' be used to allow people to link to the Port Author Massacre article based upon existing editorial consensus. If you disagree with the current editorial consensus then I think this is a good topic within which to consider requesting some level of mediation for. Syr74 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

After further reviewing the article I think the role the AR-15 played in the acceptance of the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington round, and the very small amount of information regarding the same within this article, makes the argument here better than I can. Put simply, without Colt purchasing the AR-15 design from Armalite, refining it greatly, and then getting that design accepted by the US military the 5.56 NATO cartridge never reaches anything like the significance it currently has at best, and potentially has faded into obscurity now at worst. Why isn't this covered within this article in some detail? Realistically it isn't covered as I described it at all and 5.56 NATO is mentioned more or less as the cartridge this rifle is chambered for and little else. The Colt AR-15 is directly responsible for the 5.56 NATO round and, thereby, everything that cartridge has wrought. How many Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani people were killed by that cartridge? And keep in mind yet again that this cartridge likely wouldn't exist in any meaningful way if at all by this point were it not for the Colt AR-15. The significance there is beyond dispute, without question it *far exceeds the significance the Port Author massacre plays in the history of the AR-15, but it isn't in here..why? You simply cannot cram every piece of significant information into one article as a sub-section, it just wouldn't be readable, and as such links and 'see also' sections were invented to solve that problem. I suggest we use them here. Syr74 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a fairly short article that would benefit from expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 00:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I wouldn't add an in-depth accounting of 5.56 development even as significant as it is. This article does need expansion, and there is plenty of information out there to do so, but you could turn this article into a novel with information that is directly relevant to the Colt AR-15, adding a lot of detail about the 5.56 NATO cartridge and the Port Author massacre when those can be explained better elsewhere and linked would, IMO, make things overly complicated. Explaining those issues in their respective articles and then linking to and from this one would leave everything simpler and more easily legible. Syr74 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support opening a well-publicized RfC to gain wider community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - didn't we just have an RfC about this? One with "community-wide" input? The notice for it is still on this page, just 6 sections above. It's still pending closure, so shouldn't we wait for the outcome of that one, before starting another one and re-doing everything all over again? jahq - ^theWOLFchild 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think it'd be best to have an RFC, since otherwise this appears unlikely to be settled. But that should probably wait until the Village Pump RFC is closed, since that one will determine the general guidelines of this RFC. For example, if it finishes with "no, mass shootings should never be mentioned" or "yes, mass shootings should always be mentioned" then an RFC here will be unnecessary. My expectation is that the other RFC will end with some recommendation of taking a case-by-case approach based on individual articles, and then we will have to have an RFC here, but we shouldn't start one yet because the guidance or policy determination there will have a big impact on how this RFC should be written (and any policy changes might affect how people want to vote). In the meantime, the consensus on this page is clearly against inclusion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Edit Never mind, the RFC has been closed, with the conclusion that this should be determined on a case-by-case basis, so it makes sense to have an RFC here to settle this issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• OPPOSE... We have already had THREE RFCs on this very subject. The overwhelming consensus opposed inclusion of the Port Arthur Massacre. ONE (see above sections) has time out, but has yet to be closed, and it also has overwhelming consensus opposing inclusion. We don't have one RFC after another, after another until the "right side" wins. This by definition tendentious editing. Enough is Enough drop the stick--RAF910 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I went back and looked at when these recent surveys were posted, and none had any kind of RFC tag. To the extent that there's a difference between a talk page survey on the one hand and a formal RFC on the other, they weren't RFCs. Which discussion above "timed out"? Were any of them logged as RFCs and publicized as such? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, consensus is not established solely by RfCs, it can be established with any talk page discussion. You can attempt to gauge consensus on just about anything at anytime, just by posting a question or a suggestion, and evaluating the responses you get, (or you can ask for a straw poll). But in this case, RAF910 has a point; if there is a recent and clear consensus on this matter already, then it would be disruptive to try re-estaish another one so soon, just to try and get a different outcome. - ^theWOLFchild 17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, @RAF910: Where are the RfCs you've been talking about? You say there are three of them. Where are the other two? Geogene (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me but, why are you asking me this? - ^theWOLFchild 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it looks like there might not have been three RfCs, in spite of RAF910 has been claiming, and it looks like your remarks at 17:54, 4 April are a tacit recognition of that. Geogene (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geogene: - Just how "tacit" can my "remarks at 17:54, 4 April" be when I used the word "if"...? As in; 'if' you want to know where the RfCs that RAF910 mentioned are, then ask RAF910. There is nothing in my comments that indicates I have any knowledge of these RfCs, such as where they might be found, how many there are, when they took place, what their outcomes were or if they even exist in the first place. And I don't appreciate the innuendo. - ^theWOLFchild 06:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I found one discussion in the archives: Talk:Colt_AR-15/Archive_2#Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia). Two editors supported the inclusion, while three (all WP:GUNS members) stricken upon request opposed. This appears to be an attempt to enforce local consensus of the (now deprecated) "Criminal use" provision of WP:GUNS, which has been modified following the recent RfC at VPP. I see automotive RfCs cited in this discussion, while gun use RfCs seem to be more relevant:

• Talk:Ruger_Mini-14#Rfc:_Add_major_incidents_to_article? -- the consensus was to "include".
• Talk:SIG_MCX/Archive_1#RFC:_Is_the_Orlando_shooting_relevant? -- the consensus was to "include".

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:: "...while three (all WP:GUNS members) opposed." - I would ask that you strike that part of your post. It lends nothing materially to formation of consensus or even this discussion. It's basically labeling them as "pro-gun" and unwilling to be neutral and reasoned with their input. If we learned anything from that latest AE report, it's that casting aspersions is not acceptable. You already did this to me, calling me "a WP:GUNS member" when in fact I never was, but I was labeled "pro-gun" after that anyway. Lets stick to content instead contributors, ok? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 02:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

{ec}For what it's worth I wouldn't consider the Mini-14 RfC a strong precident. It was a very close RfC. @MrX:, the closing editor, said policy based arguments were made on both sides but felt the include side made the more compelling argument. Since that RfC MrX has participated in many of these discussions and has shown a clear preference in these discussions. I do not wish to reopen that RfC but I think there is firm grounds for a challenge based edit record of MrX since that closing. NOTE: I believe MrX provided what they felt to be an honest closing and this is in no way meant to impute their edits etc. Springee (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Those articles merely serve to prove the point. Both of those shootings took place in what is, by far, the largest market for those firearms and those incidents directly affected the companies that build those weapons, those which produce the ammunition for them, the law enforcement community in those areas, and the owners of the same. Even more, the incidents in question are well know to the general public in that same primary market. The vast majority of people who are in a market/part of the world where the Mini-14 or SiG_MCX are reasonably well known or likely to be encountered, which happens to be the United States, are undoubtedly more familiar with the FBI shootout and the Orlando shooting in general than with the Port Author shooting. And for that reason that information should be, and is, included within those articles. It's also likely that the overwhelming majority of people in the market that the AR-15 is primarily marketed to don't know what Port Author actually is, and are all but if not completely unaffected by the Australian gun control laws which that incident led to. Consensus is to handle these issues on a case by case basis for a reason, and we are seeing that reason right now. The information in question is very important, but information being important does not mean that it needs to be included in every single article where somebody might potentially look for it. If that were to become the case Wikipedia would become illegible by the morning. I think that the question that we need to address here is, are we trying to provide the likely majority of the audience for this article with the information that they are looking for, or are we going to integrate information that they most likely aren't looking for here because we think that they need to know it? Information which is, I might add, already very well covered in articles where people are most likely to search for it. The mission of Wikipedia is, to my understanding, the former and not the latter. Syr74 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a classic "moving the goalposts" argument. The oft-cited essay recommends that a mass shooting meet "some criteria, for instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage." Now you are suggesting that the legislation must be well-known by owners of that weapon in its largest market. What specific criteria are you advocating? –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:RELNOT I've said it already, I just didn't provide the link. The topic at hand has to be more than simply important and related to the subject to warrant inclusion within a specific article, it has to be relevant to the readership of that article. The easiest and only realistic way to calculate such a number is to compare familiarity with the rifle, and this specific brand, by where this rifle exists, in what numbers, and by whom it is used. The entire centerfire semi-auto percentage of weapons turned in during the initial Australian buy-back period post Port Author gives us a little over 6,000 pieces total. Of those only a modest percentage are going to be AR-pattern rifles and of that percentage an even smaller number are going to have been manufactured by Colt. To put that into perspective Colt will sell over 20,000 AR-pattern rifles privately in the US alone this year, and they aren't the largest civilian manufacturer of this type of rifle. Over time we are talking about several hundred thousand potential readers via private ownership in the US, every Marine and Army soldier who ever shot a rifle in basic training over the last 50 years within the US, the soldiers in the more than ten other countries that utilize the Colt AR-15/M4 family of weapon as their primary rifle besides the US. Were literally discussing adding an entire sub-section for what is likely an audience of a few thousand people from the Pacific Rim region in an article where the total likely readership is in the tens of millions. By far, the majority of people who are likely to be interested in this article are also likely to be completely unfamiliar with Port Author, and that means it isn't relevant to the readership of this article. Syr74 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The topic at hand has to be more than simply important and related to the subject to warrant inclusion within a specific article, it has to be relevant to the readership of that article. There is no such policy. You made that up. Geogene (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The policy at hand is weight and in this case the question is what establishes it in context of this article. In general, since articles about the gun don't discuss the shooting it's reasonable to say leave it out. I personally think we should stick with the long standing project page suggestion which would suggest inclusion based on the significance of the crime with respect to legal changes in Australia. Springee (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Georgene, did you read the information in the link I posted above regarding what relevance is not? My argument is clearly cited under 'confusing relevance with importance'. The article states that 'the issue must be about the topic of the article and must be important in the eyes of the reader'. There really isn't any getting around the latter portion of that statement, it must be important in the eyes of the reader. The burden of proof here is then going to fall upon the people arguing for inclusion to prove that the millions of private Colt AR-15 owners and military veterans with direct experience with the AR-15 who live outside of Australia are reasonably familiar with this information as a group and find it important since so few of either of those groups are from Australia or a neighboring state. (the Colt AR-15 is not a standard issue service rifle in Australia and, as such, only the relatively small number of special forces troops in that state have experience with the weapons) That you think it is important, or that you think people need to know, are both insufficient reasons to include this information within this article as is clearly covered at WP:RELNOT. Are you suggesting that we should just ignore this official Wikipedia guideline about what relevance is and is not? Correction, this is an essay and not an official Wikipedia guideline, but I'll still stand behind the assertion that the issue needs to be relevant to the readership as a whole to warrant inclusion, and this just isn't. Correction, this is an essay, not a guideline. I'll still stand by the argument that it has to be important to the readers of the article or it doesn't warrant inclusion. Syr74 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Syr74, I agree with the general thrust of the WP:RELNOT essay but I can see some issues with the specifics. However, we need to be careful about "important in the eyes of the reader". This is a politically charged topic and quite a number of readers may only care about the gun crime/gun control angle. So while I might say "did the crime have an impact on the gun" other editors may say the only thing significant about the civilian version of this gun is the harm/crimes committed with it. Springee (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Syr74:: I'm not sure how you arrived at your audience estimate of "a few thousand people in the Pacific Rim." Readers have a wide range of interests and experiences. I would argue that most Australians would be interested in their country's gun control history, and the fact that they may not be the largest audience does not justify removing content from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I estimated based on one of the only two real criteria we have, the percentage/number of people you might expect to have direct contact, or the possibility of direct contact, with a Colt manufactured AR-15. The rifle in question was extraordinarily rare in Australia prior to modern Australian gun control laws, it is all but non existent now. In other locales, like the United States and the Middle East, it isn't absurd to assume that a number approaching half of adults have some direct experience with these rifles. I agree that Australians will be interested in their gun control history in general, I just don't know why anybody would think that they would begin that search at an article about a specific rifle rather than in the far more likely Australian Gun Control and Port Author articles which already exist. WP:OFFTOPIC This link covers it best in my opinion and reinforces what I was saying earlier better than the 'not related' link did. 'If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain redundant passages of this kind. Please be bold in merging these passages.' The Port Author massacre is related to the topic covered by the Colt AR-15 article but it most definitely is not the topic covered by that article and it isn't a topic that is especially relevant to the majority of likely readers. Rather, it's a related topic that is very important to a small subset of readers. So, rather than make the majority of readers trudge through a section they didn't arrive at the article in question to see anyway, why not just provide a link and a 'see also' to the better articles where they are likely to end up anyway? Syr74 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in-depth coverage is more suited to an article about the massacre, however it is important to give the reader some context instead of providing a "See also" link with no explanation. The single sentence about the massacre provides a very succinct explanation. –dlthewave ☎ 01:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree in this instance as, anybody who needs an explanation to figure out what the 'see also' link is for is more than likely not looking for gun control information in the first place. To my eye it doesn't improve the article, potentially adds a great deal of undue weight to the event with regard to the significance it had on both the rifle and the manufacturer, and likely serves to distract from the primary content of the article for the majority of likely readers. Syr74 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The rifle and its manufacturer have had a great deal of influence on national gun control policy in at least two different countries, and a lot has been published about that. This is the only meaningful relevance that the rifle has outside of the gun enthusiast subculture. Except for patents, a lot more has been written about the Port Arthur massacre in scholarly journals than has been written about the AR-15 in its totality. Look at the pitiful sourcing in this article. So little has been published about the gun itself that you're citing your history to books from Prepper Press. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geogene, your argument is fallacious. The Colt AR-15 is a tool intended for a purpose; and as such is most likely to be found in scholarly articles that discuss the purpose for which the tool was created rather than simply focusing on the tool itself. In similar fashion I would expect that there are a lot of scholarly articles regarding what hammers are used for, but a substantially lesser if still significant number about the hammer specifically. That said, I would still venture a guess that there are at least as many scholarly articles about the Colt AR-15 as there are about Port Author in general if not more, primarily because so much written about Port Author isn't going to be genuinely scholarly in nature but overtly popular by way of obvious political slant and intent. In contrast, the number of scholarly articles within which the AR-15 features prominently, and which focus on the actual purpose the AR-15 was designed for, unquestionably dwarf the number of the same written about Port Author. The reason for this is simple, as the Colt AR-15 will figure prominently in any scholarly article about the majority of conflicts since Vietnam which deals with strategy, tactics, or equipment, most articles covering the same items as it relates to defense and police procurement, virtually all articles discussing second amendment rights which cover weapons in any significant way.....the list could keep going on to the point that it is inappropriate. In fact, I think your point here serves more to undermine your argument than not, as any review of scholarly articles that feature the AR-15 prominently is going to highlight Port Author as a footnote and the focus, intent, and overwhelming use of the weapon as something else. Which leaves us right back at the inclusion of Port Author causing a problem with weight here. Syr74 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I know it isn't fallacious, because I had a look. The search term "ar-15" rifle [7] in Google Scholar generates almost nothing except patents. Switch patents off, and you get mostly commentary on gun control. There's some stuff about noise safety and an ergonomics paper too. Geogene (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 See RfC below. –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of books on the subject but they often aren't scholarly nor does Google Book show much in the way of content. Wikipedia sourcing is often what we can find on line which makes for a bit of an inherent limitation. A subject that is well sourced in the paper book world would require trips to physical libraries. I find scholarly works good for some subject but not so much for others. (edit):I was curious so I did a Google news search for "Port Arthur Massacrer" and got 7440 hits. When I added "Colt AR-15" to the search the number was reduced to 74. That's 1% of articles discussing the topic including mention of the gun used. By normal standards of weight this would be very low. Below I'm supporting the inclusion based on the significance and in accordance with project firearms/crime recommendations. Based on weight I think a strong case for exclusion can be made. Springee (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Geogene, there is some irony here in that a Google search for actual, scholastic material wouldn't actually satisfy the scholastic method since neither a Google search for information, or Wikipedia for that matter, are typically considered acceptable. Put more simply, your findings as presented would be rejected by the vast majority of scholars based strictly on method, and this is so for a reason. Syr74 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

5.56 NATO cartridge

An editor has suggested adding information about the 5.56 NATO cartridge. This seems like an appropriate way to expand the article, if reliable sources support the significance of the cartridge in relation to the gun. Feel free to WP:BOLDLY add a section or propose an edit here. –dlthewave ☎ 00:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that I'm likely the editor being quoted as suggesting this here and, actually, I don't suggest it at all. In fact, In fact I completely disagree that this needs to be added to this article. If we include everything in this article that is of some significance to the Colt AR-15 family you wouldn't be able to read it. More realistically, the history of 5.56 development needs to be covered within the article that covers that cartridge, a reference citing the relationship between the development of the cartridge and the rifle acknowledged within the article at most, and a link created so as to minimize confusion and make information gathering as simple as possible. Yes, this information would be more relevant to the Colt AR-15 page than is the Port Author Massacre, but it doesn't need to be encapsulated here for the same reason. Syr74 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Port Arthur Massacre

Should the Port Arthur Massacre be mentioned in this article? –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The following section was recently challenged:

Following the use of a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine in the Port Arthur massacre, the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996 was enacted in Australia, restricting the private ownership of high capacity semi-automatic rifles.

References

Survey options

• Support - Include the Port Arthur Massacre. Please specify whether you support the text as written, a different version or something else such as a "See also" link.
• Oppose - Do not mention the Port Arthur Massacre at all.

Straw Poll

• Oppose - Do not mention the Port Arthur Massacre at all... Not this again. For all the reasons stated in previous discussions. --RAF910 (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Not this again." That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments. Sounds much like "I don't like it." Please elaborate. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think "please elaborate" is sufficient, no? There's no need for insults. - ^theWOLFchild 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone who experienced some personal impact from the Port Arthur Massacre, I felt insulted by someone implying it wasn't important, with no better explanation than "Not this again." HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

First let me say that, sincerely, that I've persinally seen the tragic effects a mass-shooting has collaterally and I'm sorry that you had to experience that. But you have to know that RAF910, (or I), couldn't have known that, and certainly weren't in any way trying to dismiss your feelings on this. The "Not this again" comment isn't the only explanation, though. If you'd been following this issue, you'd see that RAF910 is coming from a position that this topic has already been discussed, both recently and at length. (I don't know the details, I just seen his other comments). But that aside, we have to try and keep our personal feelings from affecting our editing, hence the reason we have NPOV for articles and NPA for talk pages. I'm sure you agree with that. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 08:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

off topic comments

I restored the comment; please don't clerk discussions.--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Don't want to see this derailed any further. Please see your talk page. Thank you - theWOLFchild 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC) HiLo48 - That's an interesting turn. The first time around, your only response was to explain the comment, not claim it was something different. I replied and hoped that was the end of it. But now after some edits, you are re-instating it. I know if someone claimed I "spent my life sitting here reading old arguments", with multiple underlying insulting contexts, I would certainly take offence. But since the comment was directed at RAF910 and not me, I won't comment on this any further and leave it be. - theWOLFchild 16:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) I did not claim someone else "spent my life sitting here reading old arguments". I simply said that I (and I guessed some others) didn't. Please don't read more into my comments than the words I actually use. I try to choose them carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC) I merged the side conversation into the collapsible area and put the responses in chrono order. No need to get this off-topic any further. Please see my Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support proposed text as written; no reason to oppose this sourced content. Geogene (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:Firearms criminal use this is a significant crime that clearly had an impact on the laws of Australia and on the gun debate in the US. But, I do think a strong case against inclusion can be made because, for all the times I've seen Port Arthur and the subsequent prohibition on semi-automatic rifles mentioned in context of the US gun control debate, I've wasn't even aware that the rifle in question was a Colt AR-15 (or an AR-15 of any type). So in that regard I would say a strong argument can be made that WP:WEIGHT rejects inclusion because, in context of the Colt brand AR-15 the crime seems to have had little to no impact even if the broader impact was VERY significant. Ultimately I'm torn on the matter but feel that this is one of the few cases where the significance of the legal changes after the crime are such that inclusion is warranted. Springee (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Possibly your unawareness of the brand of the weapon was due to a lack of previous mention. Is that a lack which ought to be fixed? Or is the lack an indication of non-significance? I would argue that being a semiautomatic assualt-style (i.e., "AR-15") model is significant, and warrants mention. But perhaps the brand warrants only a footnote? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Supportper Springee. Signficant crime, significant effect on laws, still impacting the debate on the otehr side of the world. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the sources about the shooting only mention the type of rifle in passing, and sources about the rifle do not mention the shooting. The rifle might be notable to the shooting, but I don't think the shooting is notable to the rifle. This is not like the case of US mass shootings in the AR-15 type rifle article, where inclusion is supported by sources discussing in detail how the weapons affect and are affected by the shootings. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Red Rock Canyon above; there is good reason to avoid lending undue weight to an event which has had so little effect on the subject of this article. The Colt AR-15 is important to Port Author and as such warrants mention in that article, the reverse is not the case. Syr74 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Springee. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Red Rock Canyon.note- found about this RfC because of a related AN/I thread.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - That an incident involving this model got the whole class banned in Australia seems very much worth mentioning. Support the sentence as previously, plus maybe more. The article lead is too short anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support This incident was a key element in the development of Australia's gun laws, being used now by many as an example the USA could learn from. Clearly significant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment #1 - Not all of the "support" !votes have specified; "whether you support the text as written, a different version or something else such as a "See also" link" ...as requested in the RfC OP.
  FYI. - ^theWOLFchild 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - for the for the text as written and no more. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
• Question - where in the listed sources does it say Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine ? The first source lists no model, the second only a Colt AR-15 and the third only an AR-15. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
• Support Gun laws directly involving this gun should be mentioned, such as the U.S. law mentioned in the lede. There should be a section in the article on gun laws relating to AR-15. First Light (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun laws related to the AR-15 doesn't sound like a "Colt AR-15 (TM)" subject but rather something that may be related to AR-15 style rifle which is the article where the general AR-15 type rifle is covered and includes discussions of AR-15's and the media discussions about the rifles after a number of mass shootings. Springee (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

But a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine was used in the Port Arthur incident, no? A new gun law was passed based on that, no? The massacre should be mentioned here also, imo, not just the new gun law based on it. First Light (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support The Port Arthur incident was a key to changing Australia's gun laws. This weapon played a vital role. Clearly significant. CamV8 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support of course; significant event and well sourced. Not discussing stuff like this would be like omitting birth defects from the thalidomide article (a drug that is very, very useful) and the way that those birth defects led to changes in federal law about drug testing. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - a whole section in AR15 just for this event is going WP:OFFTOPIC with prominence far beyond due WP:WEIGHT. I believe this and similar have had prior discussions which ended with this article should not cover these as part of its content. Note a See Also would not be part of this article so is an 'Oppose' -- but might be allowed by prior discussions. (Prior discussions like this seem to be at recent Village pump RFC, this article Archive 3 twice, and Archive 2 once ?) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - clearly significant and well sourced. Boggles the mind how anyone could think a short mention of this highly significant event would be "undue" - that's simply unsupported by policy. Neutrality^talk 03:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Refer to WP:UNDUE. A zillion articles on AR15 where 99%+ do not even mention this event is how the prominence of a whole section and amount of content here is WP:UNDUE. Even at the article about the event or about the law the gun would get minor or no mention. Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If the gun articles you're talking about are in sporting magazines, then I wouldn't expect them to talk about this, because they're geared toward a specific audience and a very specific subject matter. Guns and Ammo famously dismissed an editor a few years ago for infuriating their readership by writing an editorial in favor of some form of gun regulation [8], which shows that while they are probably reliable for some things, their failure to discuss mass shootings isn't surprising or meaningful. But not everything you'll find written about AR-15s is in sporting magazines. [9] The goal here is to represent all significant points of view found in reliable sources, in proportion to their prevalence. That begins with the gun's history and operation, but it doesn't end there. Geogene (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Geogene - no, all sources or specifically BBC.com and WashingtonPost.com have less than 1% of AR15 articles or mentions also mentioning Port Arthur. Even if I allowed Port Arthur Texas. Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Clearly signifiant; proposed text as written; and moving forward, needs appropriate additions, if required. scope_creep (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like the oppose opinion (as expressed by User:Dlohcierekim, User:Syr74 & User:Red Rock Canyon) is that we shouldn't mention the factoid, b/c sources only give the factoid passing mention. It seems to me that the proposed wording is basically "passing mention" to the Port Author Massacre. I don't know why we'd say the AR-15 deserves passing mention in the context of the massacre but not vice versa. The massacre seems like one of the most notable global events that the AR-15 has been involved in. It doesn't seem undue to mention it. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@User:NickCT My question here would be, if this is obviously important for inclusion within this article because the opposite is true, then why wouldn't scholastically acceptable tomes typically include Port Author under any AR-15 related text but would find it reasonable to include the Colt AR-15 as a component within an entry on the Port Author Massacre itself? The reason is obvious and simple, the subject of the Colt AR-15 article is specifically the AR-15, it should obviously be included within the text of any entries covering the Port Author Massacre as those would be incomplete without it, but including the Port Author Massacre within the Colt AR-15 article is realistically pointless and serves primarily to polarize and give a poor impression of Wikipedia. You don't actually need to include Port Author in the Colt AR-15 article for people to be able to easily find that information, and to do so in every instance where this approach is plausible would and does create duplicity on a scale that is staggering, so why do it? This is a big part of the reason why scholars will never accept Wikipedia as a credible source on the whole as, despite what are generally good intentions, we don't often enough avoid the appearance of bias. Wikipedia is not and never will be Encyclopedia Britannica online, and it shouldn't be, but I had hoped that it would become more scholarly over time and bring truly credible, relevant information to the masses. On the other side of that equation, Wikipedia most definitely should not be a larger, more poorly worded version of tabloid/pop news websites the Mirror either, but it seems as though we are leaning a good deal more toward the tabloid and pop news end of the spectrum than the credible information end of the same. The intentions are good, but the results are often unfortunate. Syr74 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Syr74: - Scholars don't accept WP cause they're generally jealous that they no longer have a monopoly on knowledge.

I sympathize with your point, but I don't feel like inclusion is unscholarly or necessarily a result of biases. Speaking directly to your point re "why wouldn't scholastically acceptable tomes typically include Port Author under any AR-15 related text"; how many references can you point to which actually cover the "History" of the AR-15? I think if we collected a set of sources which specifically cover the history of the AR-15, you probably would find that some reasonable number of them mention the massacre.

And at the end of the day, we are discussing a single sentence here, right? Making WP:WEIGHT arguments over a single sentence is rarely convincing unless you're talking about the most trivial minutia (which I don't think this is).

For the record, I usually take a moderate stance on gun control (from an American standpoint at least, which is probably pro-gun from a European standpoint). NickCT (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support the text as written because the information shows up in many sources. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support because of change in national gun law, but I don't think it needs to be an entire section. A one sentence addition to the AR-15 style rifle section seems fine.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Red Rock Canyon. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support clearly a major event that influenced a huge change in large country's firearms regulations. Pmsyyz (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I think that the voting options here are problematic. Support with a possible caveat to include a link isn't an option I'm comfortable with for reasons I suspect are clear. As such, I am forced to vote with a simple oppose. Syr74 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The intent is that editors will explain the level of coverage they feel is appropriate. Since this isn't a vote, whoever closes the discussion will gauge the consensus based on these comments. I want to avoid a situation in which someone !votes "oppose" just because they have a minor quibble with the wording. –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that the intent is good here, the layout itself is short-sighted in my opinion and absolutely gives the appearance of a bias toward the support side of the argument. Even though this is not a scholastic article we can learn something from that well developed format, which is that the question should be written as if the burden is on inclusion, not omission, as it allows for a better snapshot of what people actually think. For example, if 10 people support here and 6 oppose, but 3 of those who support only support inclusion of a see also link and no actual of inclusion of any text in this article, the final vote wouldn't in any way support the majority view which would be no text within the article. Honestly, I suspect that this is a formality because I fully expect support to take the day here easily either way, but appearances do matter. We need to be careful that it looks like we gave every option an equal opportunity so these things can be put to bed permanently. 98.23.45.127 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The word "permanently" doesn't belong in a discussion of this nature. Recent student protests tell us that, clearly, moods change in this arena. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And that is the problem, moods shouldn't direct an encyclopedia, relevance and balance should. Syr74 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, and as the mood of the public changes, and reliable sources tell us about the changed attitudes, that is what we report. We cannot write as if the mood of the public will never change. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the basis for this discussion? "Following the use of a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine in the Port Arthur massacre" has doubts due to my request for sources in Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Sources --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. Warner, Kate; (March 1, 1999) stated: " It is a version of the M16 used by the US military and it has but one purpose - to kill or disable. "

• I previously hadn't checked the sources for the proposed passage. Two of the three don't support the claim and the one remaining is weak. I would suggest we find one or two more sources that support the claim (shouldn't be hard) and fix the sourcing. While I'm supporting inclusion here, I think the weight, especially as cited is weak and wouldn't pass DUE as cited. If nothing is added by this evening I try to find some sources. Springee (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if not the specific model SP1 Carbine was mentioned, it is somehow logically that it can not have had influence on developing laws in australia. My assumption is that the government thought broader as of "assault rifles" or Battle rifle. BTW in the case of "Port Arthur massacre" there is a second rifle with missing sources. The identification as L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle as quoted in the article could be an urban legend. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This is why I'm very on the fence with this crime. There were two semi-auto rifles involved but it doesn't seem that many sources link either specific rifle to the crime. It seems the crime is associated with the general class of "Semi-auto rifle" but not with the specific rifles used. But since this is such a significant crime in terms of outcome and impact to the politics of gun control I'm actually ignoring what I think is a weak weight argument. Springee (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Because the information came from a IP-Editor i followed IP 96.54.224.159. Surprise, surprise ... this user systematically altered informations about identification of weapons in crimes !!! See [10] [11] [12] [13]. Seeing thus I can only recommend to check informations about weapons in each case before creating new urban legends. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. IP Special:Contributions/70.66.13.54&offset=&limit=500&target=70.66.13.54 has the same edit style [14] and wow Special:Contributions/96.54.224.159&offset=&limit=5000&target=96.54.224.159 IP active mission since 2011 & talkpage ;-) next IP is Special:Contributions/104.128.253.21 with changing weapon info here. + Special:Contributions/104.128.253.2 All this IPs are located in British Columbia, City: Nanaimo or Victoria

Tom, if I understand your concern, you think an IP editor inserted a fact that was basically never questioned and has now been accepted as fact without actual proof. After some quick web searching I think we might be suffering from a Wikipedia effect. As you indicated, the IP editor inserted the information here [[15]]. I've been searching for references that support the SLR's inclusion and found a number that note the rifle was used but so far all date from after the above insertion. Thus it opens the question that sources and articles talking about the subject have reviewed this article, quoted the claims and now we can, in a circular fashion, cite sources that support the claim. But if we could trace their citation chain back they would be citing Wikipedia. This is definitely a potential issue and perhaps one that should be raised on the Port Arthur page assuming no RS prior to March 2012 can be found. Springee (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's right. Sources for the Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 should not be younger than 2012 or better 2010 to be reliable. For the already located IP an Wikipedia:CheckUser might be recommendable. Wrong informations are picked up and reported f.e. here. Exactly this ends up in having wrong informations in references f.e. in L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle#cite_note-22 here. This ends up in a need for critical checks for all this crime related articles. Connecting crimes to weapon groups as done in Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_used is less critical. To do this checks in RFC's for firearms-articles is somehow not the best option. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty significant. Do we even have a credible source that specifically states this rifle was the weapon used in the Port Author Massacre? Syr74 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You could try the court transcripts. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I ran a Google searches for "Port Arthur Massacre" "AR-15", "Port Arthur Massacre" "L1A1" and "Port Arthur Massacre" "FAL" (FAL is another name for the F1A1), restricted to 1996-2011. The AR-15 is well-sourced but I haven't found any sources for SP1 Carbine. L1A1/FAL got a number of non-RS hits. It doesn't appear that the editor pulled "L1A1" out of thin air, but the sourcing is definitely questionable. It would be helpful to dig up an official investigation report.

At this point, I would say that we have strong pre-2011 support for "AR-15". –dlthewave ☎ 22:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Tom found a court document that mentioned the SLR [[16]]. So at that point I would say at least we have a non-blog/forum source. I understand court testimony isn't always "reliable" but at this point I'm satisfied that at least the claim wasn't invented around the time it was inserted into the article. We might still be seeing some Wikipedia effect with reporters seeing the fact here then reporting it based on what's here but that isn't an issue so long as the referencing isn't circular. Springee (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Aussies did not blame a specific gun for the attack and demonize it like the Yanks do. They simply banned ALL semi-auto rifles as a result. Therefore, the specific guns used were irrelevant. What's happened is many years after all was said and done. American politicians and media rediscovered that AR-15 was used and pointed to the Aussie gun ban as the solution to the so called gun problem. If anything, the Aussies were more concerned with the use of the SLR which was still used by the Australian Army at the time. Now we have editors who have decided that it is their mission to add criminal use section to every firearms article that they can get away with. And, even if they lose today, they will be back tomorrow with another rfc, and then another and another until they win.--RAF910 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You lost me completely there with your final two sentences. Not constructive at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Almost no AR-15 coverage seem to include either Port Arthur or the named law. Yes, you can find some sies out of the millions of AR-15 mentions -- but it is a tiny percentage. Googling for AR-15 I get 41.2 Million hits, and if I add port Arthur I get 167,000 -- less than 0.4%, even with some of those are Port Arthur Texas. If I go to a good RS BBC.com, AR-15 got 17,300 hits and +Port Arthur got 7 -- a 0.04% rate. Going to WashingtonPost.com I get 12,100 versus 22, for a 0.18% rte. So -- mentioning AR-15 in the Port Arthur article may be due, but it is just not significant the other way around. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue I struggle with. Weight is easy to establish when RSs talking about the subject of the article mention a claim (articles about Mustangs talking about idiot drivers crashing when leaving Coffee and Cars events). What about cases where the subject of the Wiki article is mentioned in an article about another subject (Mr (name here) has a big Mustang collection)? This is a matter of weight that should be worked out. Project Firearms provided guidance by suggesting weight be limited to cases where the impact was more than just the crime (a significant legal change for example). As I said before, I think it's odd that a RfC similar to this one said do not mention the use of a blue Chevy Caprice in the DC snipper attacks (strong opposition) yet the gun used in the same attacks does mention the crime on it's page. It seems logically inconsistent to me but I haven't looks to see if the inclusion on the gun page was ever challenged. Springee (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Current sources do not support statement: A number of editors have said the proposed statement is well sourced. That may be true if we use different sources but the current sources are not acceptable for the claims being made. The first does not mention Colt or AR-15 at all. The second says "Colt AR-15" which does support at least part of the "Colt AR-15 SP1" in the proposed text. The third says AR-15 but not Colt. Sources that support the full statement are available [[17]]. If we are going to say something is well sourced we should ensure the sources actually support the claim. For what it's worth I was one of the editors who assumed the statement was supported by the provided citations. I still stand by my statement above but the sourcing needs to be fixed. Springee (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

AR 15 is one of 3 Guns which were named in court for the Port Arthur massacre: "AR15 semi-automatic .223 calibre rifle and FN, commonly called an SLR military style semi-automatic .308 calibre rifle and a semi-automatic Daiwoo twelve gauge shotgun". Protocol (19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996) For me this gives the idea that the court was not interested to identify any submodel of this weapons. For this RFC one of 3 guns is less significant. Even less significant, because the Port Arthur massacre is already mentioned in AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime_and_mass_shootings --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

A source for the Colt AR-15 SP1 carbine, serial number SP128807, would be found in "The Port Arthur Shooting Incident", Australian Police Journal; December 1998. Problem: I don't have this source and it isn't to be found online. It's my understanding that it's available in many libraries in Australia. I'm going to see if ILL works internationally. Geogene (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean "The Port Arthur shooting incident; Australian Police Journal; December 1998: pp. 207-228." ??? Very interesting. By the serial Number I found KEITH ALLAN NOBLE: MASS MURDER Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (E-Book with 718 Pages). At p. 29 "A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION " and more Info. Addtional reading with Stewart K. Beattie: A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages) If this Infos are reliable, parts of the story have to be rewritten because of partial debt of australian officials. I suggest to wait here till the authors have done their job in the article Port Arthur massacre (Australia). If you want to thank for the help of WP:Firearms to check and find sources for the article Port Arthur massacre here or in any press releases (comparable with the press-releases which blamed WP:Firearms) will show up in future. Interesting to see if mentioning of this scandal connected to the Colt AR 15 article will still be on the top-level-wish-list of crime and politics-related writers or other party’s. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Stewart K. Beattie; A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages)" appears to be a self-published source by a conspiracy theorist. I looked at it briefly, so I could be wrong, but that was my first impression. There are apparently other theories out there that Bryant was "framed" or some such. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well lets just see how it works out in Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics. The Book you mentioned is absolutely reliable concerning the technical details (which are not available in other sources). Conspiracy (aka POV) seems to be a problem in all sources ... depending from which side they come. We will do our best to prove the truth. Any help is appreciated. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Update & Info: there is a problem with a central source/document of the article. Pls. see Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Problems_with_used_sources_of_the_article --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Update & Info: as there are still many deficits in the article I added an additional request for help in this project part of wikipedia in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion: You can forget about this case because of proven deficits in the linktarget

Hello Colleagues, I am very sorry to come to the conclusion that you can forget about this case because of proven deficits in the linktarget. Since more than two weeks I did my very best ([18][19] [20] [21] [22] etc.) and asked for help at multiple [23] + [24] + [25] + [26] + [27] + [28] etc. corners of this project. There are proven deficits in the article about Port Arthur massacre. Nobody went for it or dared to improve this article - me either. Notabene: it can not be the job of wp:gun to do wp:cleanup for wp:plt or wp:crime&CrimiBio. By this I can only suggest to close this RFC rejecting the case due to the deficits in the mentioned crime article. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: - Well, should the Port Arthur/Colt AR-15 SP1 content be added or not? I see today it has been re-added, apparently based on consensus. But that is irrelevant if there is an issue with the sourcing. - ^theWOLFchild 19:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The only sourcing issue in that sentence was "SP1 Carbine" which I've removed. The rest is well-sourced and unrelated to the concerns raised at Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia). –dlthewave ☎ 20:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If we removed material simply because of "problems" in a linked article, then every wikipedia article would have to be blanked. No article is without flaws, but those flaws don't propagate upwards to any article that discusses the same material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

no problems or well sourced ? somebody must be joking. see "reliable sources often mention the weapon in articles" has a probem as is has been pointed out in:

• • Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)_/_HIGH_COURT_OF_AUSTRALIA_/_Filed_Information
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#Do_we_help_each_other_as_collegues_?
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Help_for_Article_Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
  • Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_58#Nobody_dares_to_touch_or_edit_the_article_Port_Arthur_massacre
  • Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Nobody_dares_to_touch_or_edit_the_article_Port_Arthur_massacre
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Crime_articles_possibly_not_reliable_???

Multiple colleagues see Problems with: WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of those links are just you asking for help on various talk pages. None of them are related to the statement and sources that we're discussing here. The sources provided here directly support the fact that the massacre led to the passage of regulations. What exactly is the SYNTH/NOR/PTS concern? –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you read the links ... once more: I just looked it up once more in https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary definitions from there are:

• "Primary Sources

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.

• Secondary Sources

Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research."

Main source of port of article "Port_Arthur_massacre" is invalid because legal documents. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Why are we supposed to care about the sourcing of Port Arthur massacre (Australia)? This is a discussion over the sentence proposed for this article. None of the sources are legal documents. All the sources for the proposed section are independent secondary sources. Though I don't agree that it should be included, it definitely meets the requirement for verification. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"used in many mass shootings"

This edit was a reversion that removed a claim of the AR-15's used in "many mass shootings" on the basis that had no references. This article may be a suitable reference, if that's the only reason for that claim's removal. - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

thx for the hint. Since we are here on the discside of Colt AR-15 it is interesting to see that not one Colt AR-15 is mentioned in the list of the article you presented. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bit funny. The Colt AR-15 is not singled out from other similar rifles in the attempt to restrict access to such guns, as is mentioned in that section, so I think that reference could still be appropriate, even though there are no actual Colt AR-15s on the list. - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Since we have the AT-15 Style Rifle article I would suggest not using generalized statements about AR-15 type rifles here. This article should be strictly Colt AR-15s. Springee (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like references weren't the only reason after all. That makes sense to me, thank you. And I assume you're referring to the AR-15 style rifle article; AT-15 sounds more like a rifle that walks (attempt at humor, not always my strong suit). - Mr.1032 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes, I wasn't thinking Star Wars. (leaving the mistake so your comments stay in context ;) Springee (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Since this is about the COLT AR15 and the COLT AR15 doesn't seem to be used in "many mass shootings", there's no reason to include it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of photos

I love pictures, but I think we're going a little overboard with the number of pics used in this article. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I went ahead and removed the photo of the Ruger SR-556. Most of the close-ups can probably go as well. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Week

I restored "The adolescent cult of the AR-15" from The Week to the media template. The article is clearly about this page. At the time of the writing, "Colt AR-15" was the page that had "AR-15" in its name. The page that is now AR-15 was then called "Modern Sporting Rifle". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman:, in that case are you going to remove it from the AR15 style rifle page which didn't exist at the time? The article slanders one of our editors while providing no insight or value. Springee (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style rifle subsection

That subsection should briefly summarize the AR-15 style rifle page, as is standard. The most important elements of that article should be mentioned (if briefly). Those are the relation between such rifles and the Colt version, some details on variations, how widespread they are, and their use in mass shootings (which is arguably the most important of all, considering the depth and breadth of interest in that). Waleswatcher (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)