This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Recent edit, 2017 RfC
@Springee: regarding this edit, I believe that the 2018 RfC on inclusion superceded preceding RfCs. Could you advise? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC I think you are referring to said local consensus is the ultimate arbitrageur. The RfC here was not just a few editors so I don't think we can just ignore it. Do you have a link to the 2018 RfC? Springee (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the RfC you are thinking about[[1]] it said the AR-15 article should include mass shootings (and it does). It says other articles are case by case. Here we have a RfC that had good participation and didn't support inclusion. Springee (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. M&P15 is an AR-15 style rifle. Are you thinking that the 2018 RfC does not apply here? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two RfCs are not in conflict with one another. The 2018 RfC you referenced said the AR-15 article should. The closing contained links to that article so the intended target was clear. This is not the AR-15 article. It said other articles should be decided by on a case by case basis. Inclusion here was decided by a widely attend RfC. Springee (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sample oppose vote: "Oppose - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use, it says it all". This former guidance is no longer valid. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "oppose" votes (and, oddly, the closing statement) in the 2017 RfC cite previous talk page discussions which, in turn, refer to the former WP:GUNS guidance as well as other arguments which were rejected by the community in 2018. I do not see any valid prior consensus to exclude criminal use from this article; if there is an objection at this point than it would be appropriate to start a fresh discussion and assess the material on its merits. –dlthewave☎ 06:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having just reviewed the 2017 closing comments, I don't really agree with your summary. The closing editor says that prior to the RfC there was extensive discussion of the question on the article talk page. The closing comments didn't reference other RfCs. The discussion did reference two non-firearms RfCs that involved exclusion of significant crimes from what could be seen as related articles [[2]], [[3]]. Springee (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an attempt to back door inclusion despite the outcome of a recent RFC with sufficient participation. Essentially this would be forum shopping. I would also note that the WP:firearms guidance didn't change in a way that would invalidate the statement cited nor do we know that the editor would suddenly change their mind off have no other justification. Again this was not a case of just a few editors or the usual suspects deciding. Springee (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 RFC here mandated that the AR-15 style rifle article (specifically that article) have a section on it's notable use in mass shootings. After that it was determine whether the use of a particular firearm in mass shootings should be mentioned within the article for that firearm on a case by case basis. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer - Criminal use is relevant to the topic and has received prominent RS coverage. –dlthewave☎ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forum shopping? Why are you trying to go against the results of a RfC that had input from about two dozen editors? Springee (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE AGAIN enough with the forum shopping.--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The use of high-powered rifles in mass shootings is a recent, notable and extensively covered phenomenon of significant public interest. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this be reopened? The recent, closed RfC had 24 participants, many not "the usual suspects". Why should we suddenly decide to ignore the previous consensus? Springee (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course this should be included, it is extremely notable and relevant. Furthermore other very recent RfCs have concluded that other gun articles (such as AR-15 style rifle and Colt AR-15) should include the analogous information. It should be included here too. Waleswatcher(talk) 17:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to read the RfC that people are forum shopping you will see that this exact argument was addressed by several editors. Springee (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an effort to be be polite and assume good faith. Thanks in advance. In fact I did read it, and I didn't see any mention of the Colt AR-15 article. As a separate point, that discussion was 1.5 years ago. No reason in the world it can't be revisited now. Waleswatcher(talk) 21:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Dlthewave's posting of this discussion to the project Gun Politics page is improper notification. The subscribed editors are almost exclusively those who have pushed for this sort of content in articles. For what ever reason the members of the RfC Dlthewave is attempting to ignore aren't being notified. This is forum shopping along with improper notification. Springee (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I saw Dlthewave posted to several noticeboards that might house interested editors, not just the Gun Politics one. And a noticeboard specifically about gun politics would seem quite relevant to this discussion. Perhaps address why there's any good reason to exclude relevant mention of these firearms in notable mass shootings rather than complaining that the discussion is being revisited after a year and some 45 or more deaths in American mass shootings later. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave notified two project pages. The firearms project of course makes sense. The other was the gun politics project. That is a project started by Dlthewave with the intent of trying to inject political content into firearms articles. The project has ten participants who have been active in pushing this type of content into articles. This is not a long established project or one with wide membership. This sort of back door canvasing is one of the big concerns I had with the project when Dlthewave set it up a few months back. Springee (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
