Talk:AR-15 style rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List of mass shootings[edit]

Not sure we rally need this.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to: AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history,[64] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[65] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[65] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
If you are referring to that I'd suggest it's relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes that is what I am referring to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Simonm223, those are all extremely notable events in which the use of AR-15 style rifles got a lot of coverage. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but I am not sure we need a list, or come to that a line that may well end up out of date the next mass shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that somebody watching this page will update it if that happens. I, of course, hope against hope it will not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
That is why the MOS usually expects us to edit in past tense.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that's a do-able edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I do have a question. There are six of these mass shootings, yet we are naming five. Why? what's the sixth. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I seem to recall either I or someone else made a very similar point a while ago. Another reason to remove the list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Waleswatcher: what's the one you're missing? Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to go back and check (too busy right now), but it's probably the Pulse nightclub shooting. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, please insert ASAP. I disagree with removing this piece as I think it's notable and due, but I agree that it shouldn't be incomplete if it's up. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The SIG MCX is not an AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK will do later, or someone else can. For now one link just in case, which says "each SIG MCX features an aluminum KeyMod handguard, AR-style lower controls and polymer magazines", and lists the mag type as "AR-15". Slatersteven, it is according to its manufacturer (at least it has an AR style lower receiver and magazine), see that link. There are many other sources that also characterize it as AR-style. Anyway I'm not even certain it's the Pulse shooting that's missing, I have to check later. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
And it will get reverted by someone [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes misrepresenting the facts is not ok. -72bikers (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The controls and pistol grip are AR familiar, similarities are mainly cosmetic. The operating system is similar to an AK, the bolt and recoil system is a serious departure from anything else, you can swap barrels in under a minute with a quick-change barrel, the buttstock folds to the side. It is not marketed as a AR and reviews in the industry do not consider it a AR style rifle. It has more in common with a AK than a AR being that the resemblance with the AR are superficial. -72bikers (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

5 or 6[edit]

A source cannot have said both, this smacks of OR. The source lists 6 shootings, but many subsequent stories contradict the claim the Orlando shooting was with an AR-15. This needs a serious rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be getting tripped by "not an AR-15" and "not an AR-15 style rifle". Most of these weren't AR-15s. Sandy Hook was a Bushmaster rifle, San Bernadino and Stoneman Douglas were M&P-15s, and Las Vegas was a dozen or more different rifles. I think that the Sutherland Springs shooting was the only one that involved, or rather was stopped by, an AR-15 specifically. I don't know enough about firearms to make a comment on whether the SiG MCX constitutes a AR-15 style rifle, and based on the BI article you linked, it seems the link might be a bit tenuous. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
except that most (all the ones I have looked at) are specifically described (and marketed to a degree) as AR-15's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It makes sense to include reference to these major shooting events involving AR-15s. I'm 100% OK with a rewrite as long as we capture the information. But to avoid OR, how about we change it back to six (per the source) and then state including: x, x, x, x, x - that way the missing one is noted in absence but we aren't contradicting the source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Because that makes no sense, we say 6 and list 5. If we include this it must be what it is, as an opinion and not a fact. But then we also need to explain the discrepancy as well, and that is too much detail. This is far to complex to do Justice to in what should be one paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The SIG MCX uses the AK Operating System. -72bikers (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It sounds as if you are attempting to shoehorn the MCX into a AR. Unlike other MS that state when a AR style was used the nightclub simply states Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle. -72bikers (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd suggest perfect is the enemy of good here. We have a start. We can improve it. We don't need to purge the whole sentence, which is reliably sourced, just to do that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
And we're not trying to shoe-horn anything. Just to report the statements of reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I checked the source and it does list Orlando as the sixth shooting. So yes, Pulse is the one. As for whether the Sig Sauer counts, we have a reliable source that says yes. If you want for WP:BALANCE you could include a statement from another reliable source saying "but X says the firearm in the Pulse shooting was not AR-15 style." Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Even articles that are demeaning to the rifle state "It’s important to note that the Sig MCX is not technically an AR-15 variant. The guts of the Sig MCX are different from those of the standard AR-15 platform". -72bikers (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
We should say (as we have a contested claim) "according to X".16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Journalist generally do not have any knowledge of firearms. So if a few journalist have stated the MCX is a AR its just a uneducated opinion. I do not believe repeating ignorance is beneficial to an encyclopedia and its readers. It would also appear as grasping of straws to keep the distinction of the filtered claim weapon of choice. -72bikers (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe the claim stems from the Florida Police.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
How much you believe Journalists know about the minutia of gun manufacture is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
And for us to consider the claim to be contested first we need a RS that contests that claim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
[[2]], [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd question using the Blaze as a WP:RS but the NBC source is righteous. I suppose we could say "and the Pulse Nightclub shooting (ref) - though this is contested as, while the Orlando Police described the weapon as an AR-15 style weapon, the manufacturer disagrees." Again I find all this hair-splitting a bit silly. This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Neither the business insider, nor CNBC are either NBC or the blaze.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow this statement "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour" just speaks to a condemning bias to firearms. Some of use feel that actual facts matter. -72bikers (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The Sig MCX may look like an AR-15, but they are extremely different. Afootpluto (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The business insider article is a re-print of an article from the Blaze from what I saw. That said, I've no problem with the second source. And my personal opinions about firearms are neither here nor there and I'd kindly appreciate if 72bikers would avoid casting aspersions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why are we discussing this again? This was discussed at both WP:NPOVN [[4]] and [[5]]. As Nightshift32 said in the NPOV discussion Pretty definitive. Business Insider also reports this [2]. CNBC says "But not all recent mass shootings involve the AR-15 or its variants. The massacre of 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, for instance, was carried out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a semi-automatic rifle that is internally distinct from the AR-15, despite its similar look." [3]. Tampa Bay Times [4]. - links are live in the archived links. 6 is not correct which is why the article said 5. Springee (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
If there's an article that says 5 of the last 10 instead of 6 of the last 10 and if 6 is incorrect can we just update to the correct source and say 5 of the last 10? This is getting kafkaesque. There's no good reason to exclude the highly over-represented frequency of this gun type in extreme mass shootings from the page just because the LA times quoted a police department that disagreed with the categorization of a firearm from the marketing department of the manufacturer. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
We have RSs that say the 6 of 10 is wrong since one isn't an AR-15. That fact isn't in dispute. It's not in dispute that the Orlando shooter used an MCX. MCX != AR-15 so any reasonable editor can see the specific claim is wrong. However, the other 5 crimes verifiable used an AR-15 type rifle. We can either throw out the entire source due to the fact that it has a verifiable error or we can WP:IAR and use the source to back the 5 of 10 and perhaps add a note to the citation explaining the error. Springee (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Are there more than just this one source supporting this claim? I would point out the source does not explicitly state AR rifles have been used in 6 of the ten deadliest shootings. Also why would there be a source disputing a fictitious claim if no one reported it to begin with. -72bikers (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Multiple essential elements (lower receiver, controls, magazine) of the Sig MCX are AR-15 style, according to its own manufacturer. That suffices to make the Sig an AR-15 style rifle according to various reliable secondary sources, and that's obviously a reasonable and defensible position. Other secondary sources disagree, also reasonably. It's a matter of opinion, since "AR-15 style" is not defined. So, either we change the wording ("AR-15 style or similar rifles" for instance) or just mention that the Pulse shooting was with a rifle some regard as not AR-15 style. What's the big deal here? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
What are you basing this on "Multiple essential elements"? Your track record on such matters are anything but stellar. The manufacturer and the industry does not make any claim to the MCX being a AR style rifle.
The big deal would be you are trying to use this to claim weapon of choice when all facts actually contradict. -72bikers (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
That is a kind of Synthesis, do the manufactures call it an AR-15 style rifle? As I have suggested the easiest way is to attribute this claim to the source, then it does not matter if it is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The source is factually wrong. When we have sources that are shown to be wrong we typically throw them out. We don't include there information as correct when we know it isn't. Why are we even having this discussion now given it was addressed months back? Springee (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
That is a matter of perspective, what makes a rifle an AR-15 style rifle? I think we can say it is contested, not that it is incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Similar, yes. But not the same. The fact that the operating mechanism is very different makes it not the same. The ignorance of the reporter isn't a reason to ignore the error. Springee (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is this being discussed again? This was discussed months back. Why are we revisiting the question? Springee (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
OK then we stick with the edit that was agreed six months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:IAR and use the source to back the 5 of 10 and perhaps add a note to the citation explaining the error. This solution is 100% something I would support. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I support adding a footnote saying that the article said 6 by including the MCX as one of the 6. That footnote can then cite sources saying the MCX is similar but not an AR-15 style rifle. Springee (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I also support this solution without reservation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Which source would we be using for this? "5 out of ten" is currently sourced to LA Times which does indeed list five shootings, however their list includes Orlando and excludes Parkland {Stoneman Douglas). –dlthewave 12:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
We use the LAT source but we WP:IAR, report 5 of 6 then include a footnote saying the Orlando shooting used an MCX. We could say that it was initially reported as using an AR-15 but that was later corrected. I think last time we discussed this we said the LAT article established why we would report this particular time period and "of 10" vs "of 12" or "x in the last 10 years" or what ever. Springee (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It includes Parkland in the text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I have come across this source [6] The Washington Post. They do a pretty good job clarifying the weapon of use.
  • "On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle."
  • "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles."
  • "points out, the MCX is a modular rifle designed to be able to change between a variety of calibers and “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form." -72bikers (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
CNBC [7] They state MCX is not a AR-15 and do speak of other shootings that did use AR's but still not a list like LA Times.
The Business Insider [8] states not a AR, they also state that this shooting was a terrorist attack. They also state that because of the error first reported by the police was the reason many publication reported AR.
The Blaze [9] "Islamic State-supporting killer" and "It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an “AR-15-style assault rifle” and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping “style” from the description."
The Mother Jones list also states just semi-automatic rifle SIG MCX as apposed to the other semi-automatics rifle stating AR-15 when AR's were used.
There are many other most deadly lists and while one or two mentions of guns used none make the distinction like the LA Times with AR-15 uses. So while being incorrect they also lack any support from any other publication. -72bikers (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment My view is we should say 6 out of 10 because that's what the source says, and then add a footnote saying that Pulse shooting was a SIG MCX which is arguably not "AR-15 style", with a citation or two for that. However if the consensus is to do the reverse (say 5 out of 10 with a footnote saying the source says 6 because it counts the MCX as an AR, but other sources disagree) I'm willing to compromise, just so long as it's clear that one can reasonably regard (and some sources do regard) the MCX as AR style, rather than implying it's just an error. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: To be clear, the 6 of 10 source has been shown to be wrong since the correct number is 5 of 10. This means the source fails as RS since it has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps we should just remove the source to avoid putting false information in the article. It isn't OK to say 6 and correct with a footnote since readers who skip the footnote won't understand that such information is incorrect. Springee (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, that's simply not true. It cannot have been "shown to be wrong" absent a precise definition of "AR-15 style rifle", which does not exist. As I pointed out above, even the manufacturer of the MCX describes on its own website several of the basic components as "AR style" and makes a point of how they are interchangeable with other AR style rifles. However there is also a significant difference with (say) the Colt AR-15, and so (absent a precise definition) there just isn't a clear line one can draw. That's probably why there was this disagreement/confusion in RSs and as per wiki policy that should be reflected in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree, which is why I say take it out. It is clear some people think it is an AR-15 style rifle, others disagree. Is there a definitive and official criteria for what is an A%R-15 style rifle?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with taking it out. I think people would like some similar text there. It does serve a purpose in the article which is to help setup why we should discuss the AR-15 and mass shootings. I'm fine with taking it out but I think it would just lead to some other argument in the future. I think "5 [footnote: MCX was misidentified as Ar-15 in early reports (sources)] would also be fine. Springee (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we do with out it, both by pointing out its prominence in recent shootings and the fact it is characterized as a weapon of choice for this type of crime. Of course we could always replace 5 (or 6) out of 6 with "many" or even "around half".Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
We got to this language in the first place because "many" was considered by some to violate NPOV, or be too vague, or various other objections. Isn't going around in circles forever so much fun? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I know, I was there. But you are correct, consensus was for this wording, because some eds would not accept a more vague version (that frankly fitted the sources and situation better). I am sure I even made the self same arguments). But what we now cannot do is suddenly decide the source is wrong, if you never questioned it at the time. I think this is going nowhere, and as this was a long standing consensus edit it must stay as is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit history here and at the related article shows the source was questioned when it was first added. Springee (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, so what is the solution, more text and footnotes? Or do we go for less precise wording?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with using the current text but with 5 of 10 then add the footnote. This appears to be the conclusion of the NORN discussion. Springee (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also fine with that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not (see my comment just above), but I won't object if that's what the majority wants - at least as long as the footnote makes it clear that it's a matter of opinion, and there is disagreement, on what counts as "AR-15 style". Waleswatcher (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What if we say the MCX used in the Pulse shooting was initially reported to be an AR-15 by police and thus in some sources? This can be supported by the articles that correct the mistake but while noting the differences were immaterial to the crime. That sidesteps the "is it really or not" issue. Springee (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I've changed the text back to 5 and added the footnote regrading the MCX vs AR-15. I hope this works for all. If not please revert and we can discuss further. Springee (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

10 Oct Edit Break[edit]

I made a minor edit to the footnote, which Mr rnddude reverted and I've now restored as per my edit summary. On further investigation however, I'm starting to think we should go back to the 6 out of 10 language in the main text, and use the footnote to explain the controversy. See for instance this, which explicitly states that the SIG MCX is "a descendant of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" and that the "AR-15 Style Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree", which makes it clear that the author isn't just parroting some other source and knows the relevant facts. Since reliable sources apparently disagree on whether or not to consider the MCX AR-15 style, it seems to me we should just report what they say and not try to take sides. I think given the rules here I'm within my rights to change back to 6/10 since that was the long-standing language, but I'll wait for comments in case there is a consensus against that. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Misidentified is more accurate. I don't have a source handy but I recall the media discussing why they originally said AR-15 based on statements from police. If RS's say the original reports say misidentified then that should cover it. I'll Grant that it takes little away from the footnote to say "identified" vs "misidentified". I prefer Mrrnddude's version of the text as more accurate. It is incorrect to say the MCX is an AR-15 style rifle as defined by this article. While the MCX was designed to use the same NATO standard magazines and have similar controls, the operating mechanisms are different as are critical parts such as the receiver. An AR-15 upper can not work with an AR-15 lower (the part that is legally the gun). Sure, if we zoom out enough it can be considered AR style but the same logic would apply to the AKM if we zoom out enough. That's a slippery slope. Springee (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This article starts: "An AR-15 style rifle is a lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the Colt AR-15 design." That appears to be the same definition used by the source I quoted above that concludes the MCX is AR style, and by the source you yourself added, the Washington Post article that also says the MCX is in the AR family. So it's obviously a matter of subjective opinion precisely where to draw the line, and what "based on" means. Since reliable sources disagree, we should report that disagreement and not take sides in wikivoice. How is that controversial? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Please quote where the WP article that starts with, "The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15" says the MCX is an AR-15. Springee (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The quote is in my edit summary. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That quote doesn't really support your edit given the article starts by saying AR-15!=MCX. Springee (talk)
I agree if we are using the source we should say what the source says, and in the foot note say why they are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not the SiG MCX is an "AR-15 style rifle" has absolutely no bearing on whether it's an "AR-15". Both sources say unequivocally that the firearm used in not an AR-15. The Washington Post article you quoted says: While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles. What part of that says that the MCX is an AR-15? Hint, none of it. The Business Insider article even says: So how did the weapon become erroneously classified as an AR-15? and answers It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description. Oh, and I've left Waleswatcher a DS reminder on their talk page. They did not seek consensus prior to reinstating challenged material. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You're confused. It was Springee's edit that changed the long-standing language, and could be reverted to the original unless there is a clear consensus for it, not mine. As for AR-15 vs AR-15 style, our current text says "AR-15 variant", not AR-15s. I'm fine changing the footnote to simply say that not all the six were AR-15s, but AR-15 variants. And yes, RSs disagree on how to classify the MCX, thanks for making my point again. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere in the footnote has the word "style" or "variant" appeared. It's not there. The footnote says AR-15: Early reports on that shooting [mis]identified the rifle as an AR-15. No style, no variant. What was stated there previously, is precisely what both cited sources assert. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The facts are this. Some sources identified the rifle as an AR-15. Some identified it as AR-15 style or variant or in the AR family. Some called it an AR-15 in the headline and an AR variant in the body. Some identified it as a Sig MCX and added that the MCX is AR style or AR family or AR variant. Still others identified it as a Sig MCX and said that means it's not in the AR family. Do you dispute any of that? If not, it's simply a matter of wording things to reflect this (rather minor) disagreement in RSs. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The sources that specifically address the question say the MCX isn't an AR-15. Other sources conflate the two. There is also a scope aspect, the zoom out I mentioned before. Sig clearly wanted the controls to feel familiar and the magazines are NATO standard (same as AR-15s). However, the fact that a MCX lower can not accept an AR-15 upper should be a clear sign they aren't the same. This rifle is not just some other company mfg another Colt AR-15 copy with their own name on it. Springee (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Some sources identified the rifle as an AR-15 vs Some sources erroneously identified the rifle as an AR-15 (which is what both sources state, unequivocally). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The wording as it stands is potentially misleading to the readers, and does not accurately reflect the sources.-72bikers (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, WP:PRECISION would suggest we should refer to it as a misidentification - after all, it was a mis-identification. But WP:VER says that when sources disagree, we should present a balanced view rather than editorializing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The confusion is clearly clarified in the reference, that because the police (which they admit to) made a mistake is why the media reported this error. It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description.
Extended content

This is all of the content discussed in the sources on the MCX and AR-15.

  • The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15
  • Police Department said the gunman’s weapons included a pistol and an “AR-15-type assault rifle.”
  • On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle.
  • While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles.
  • “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.”
  • While able to shoot the same caliber ammunition — .223 — as an AR-15, the MCX was initially meant to fire a round called a .300 Blackout.
  • The key difference, however, between the standard AR-15 series of rifles and the MCX is the operating system
  • AR-15 used a system called “direct impingement.”
  • The MCX, however, is known as a “piston gun,” meaning it uses gas piston technology to operate the internals of the rifle.
  • Mikhail Kalashnikov’s AK-47 series of rifles also uses a gas piston system
  • The gun the Orlando shooter used wasn't actually an AR-15
  • However, it turns out the Islamic State-supporting killer didn't actually use an AR-15
  • The terrorist was actually armed with a Sig Sauer MCX carbine
  • sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.
  • So how did the weapon become erroneously classified as an AR-15?
  • It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description.
This reflects it was not a disagreement but simply a error made. -72bikers (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so here's the question: did the reliable source that made the claim retract that claim. Remember, when a reliable source is wrong, so is Wikipedia; it's not up to us to adjudicate truth, only what is reported in reliable sources. If the RS retracted the claim it was an AR-style rifle it's easy. It was a mis-identification and WP:VER presents no obstacle; but that's the question that I don't recall being answered. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think retraction is a requirement to show that a claim made by a RS was inaccurate. In context of say the mass shooting article this error wouldn't matter any more than it would matter if we lumped Chevy and Ford trucks together when talking about truck owners speeding more than car owners (a controversy I just invented for this discussion). However, in context of this article it matters just as we wouldn't say the Sig MCX was used in 6 of 10... Springee (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
All I'm looking for here is for us to include the reference to the frequency of use of the AR-15 in recent mass shootings (notable, reliably sourced and encyclopedically relevant) - so if consensus is to include a note that the source erred in calling the weapon in one of those six mass shooting an AR-style weapon, I'm not going to be dying on that hill, so long as we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But this conflict has gone to multiple noticeboards and dragged on here for weeks and all that seems to have happened is that we've all tied each other in knots. I guess what I'm asking is, what process best supports Wikipedia policy while maintaining a mention of notable information regarding this category of firearms? Whatever that is, if it ends this debate, I will support it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"The sources that specifically address the question say the MCX isn't an AR-15." False. I gave a source above that explicitly contradicts that. Not to mention that Sig Sauer's own website refers to multiple major components of the MCX as "AR style" or simply "AR". "Some sources identified the rifle as an AR-15 vs Some sources erroneously identified the rifle as an AR-15 (which is what both sources state, unequivocally)" False. The Washington Post piece says, explicitly, that the MCX is in the AR family. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No you haven't provided such a source. The NBC news source includes a throwaway claim that the MCX is a decedent of the AR-15. That isn't saying they are the same thing. The 2005 Ford Mustang is a decedent of the Jag S-type (yes it really is). They aren't the same car. Compare that weak claim of "same thing" to at least two articles that specifically say the rifles aren't the same thing. So weigh the sources. We have sources like your NBC news article that say one has some level of relationship with the other (the same is true of basically all rifles that use STANAG magazines are at least in part Armalite AR-15 decedents). We have other RSs that specifically state the two aren't the same thing. Springee (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What, precisely, is wrong with the language as is: "The LA Times identified six shootings including the Pulse Nightclub Shooting. Early reports on that shooting identified the rifle as an AR-15. Later reports noted that the rifle was a SIG MCX". That, plus changing five back to six in the main text, is fine with me. It's factual, accurate, sourced and consistent with the sources, and doesn't take a "wikivoice" position on whether the MCX is or is not in the AR family. I think slatersteven would support that as well (they said above they prefer to say six than five in the main text). If we can't come to a consensus here, we'll have to go back to the original text without the footnote, which would be a downgrade in my opinion. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Would this be something that could be solved using WP:DR/N? Because I don't see this dispute going away without some uninvolved assistance, but spamming over personally-preferred boards isn't going to help. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
While I prefer to have the footnote say the MCX was incorrectly identified, I don't find WW's footnote text to be factually incorrect. If that is the only disagreement I'm OK with leaving it and closing this out. I'm not OK changing the article text from 5 to 6. We have RSs that specifically state the rifle was misidentified early on. We have no RSs that specifically say the MCX is an AR-15. Putting the dispute only in the footnote where few will see it isn't something I'm OK with because we can assume most readers won't read the footnote and thus will be misinformed. Absent the 5 vs 6 correction I would propose removing the LA Times source from this article. Springee (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The manufacturer explicitly states it is not a AR. The mag, trigger, safety, and grip are not major gun component no matter how many times claimed otherwise, there actually trivial and shared with many other rifles. Sig also makes there own distinct mag's for the weapons primary intended 30 caliber. Mother Jones even called it a SIG MCX not a AR-15. It would appear to date no source has been actually presented here to support a credible claim of AR. There was consensus for the change from 6 to 5, I see no consensus to change and mislabel it from 5 to 6. Agree with removing the LA Times source from this article.

I would also point out RS's state "the Islamic State-supporting killer didn't actually use an AR-15 " and "The terrorist was actually armed with a Sig Sauer MCX carbine". This would make a argument that would actually preclude it from being called a Mass Shooting. -72bikers (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, and I have to note that I honestly don't care so long as this conflict goes away without taking valid and reliably sourced references to the frequency of the AR-15 in recent major mass shootings with it, I'd point out that various Wikipedia policies cited throughout say that when two reliable sources contradict each other, we don't decide which is right and express that in Wikipedia's voice. We report both, with certain, very specific exceptions such as WP:PROFRINGE and WP:SLANDER. This is the case even if one of the sources is the manufacturer; public perception of the weapon may be just as encyclopedically relevant as marketing decisions made by a specific gun manufacturer. I am noting this mainly because you still consistently insist that Wikipedia decide which reliable sources are right when they disagree and it's making it very hard to resolve any disputes at talk. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, it seems we may have a consensus that the footnote is OK as is. As for changing six to five, there's no consensus for the change, so I'm restoring the long-standing language for now. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I think your reversion was too hasty and you aren't listening to the concerns of others. This is an issue that has basically been a point of contention since the article was originally added here and at the mass shooting article. Springee (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Simon, you talk about two RSs disagreeing and including both. That is true when you are talking about say, conflicting views expressed by two experts. Economist A says the new plan will help the economy. Economist B says it won't. That isn't what we have here. We have one report that, as part of a larger article, lumped the MCX in with "AR-15s" when talking about shootings. Then we have RSs that specifically say the rifle used in the Pulse shooting was not an AR-15. These sources specifically say "the MCX isn't an AR-15 because..." What we don't have is any sources that specifically say "the MCX is an AR-15 because..." What we have instead are sources that take for granted that the MCX is the same as an AR-15. That may be more than nothing but it's weak when held against sources that are specifically addressing the question. Springee (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not OK with 6 of 10 in the article. The footnote is a compromise to address the fact that the article has an error. We can still use the article to support a grouping (the "of 10" part) but we have RS's showing the MCX claim is wrong. Since this source has been under dispute since originally added with no firm conclusion I move to remove the source. Springee (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Why are we debating removing information proven to be incorrect by RS? Yes it should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
There was clearly consensus achieved above for the change from 6 to 5. You have now changed the content of that consensus in the article for a week for a version that has a consensus of just one. This could be perceived as disruptive. We have a RS state that because the police (which they admit to) made a mistake is why the media reported this error.
Not only is the MCX not a AR-15 but the shooting was an act of terrorism and a hate crime according to the FBI. Also the 2015 San Bernardino attack was a act of terrorism. So this would make the count 4 of 10. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'll clarify why I'm not OK with having the article say 6 of 10 vs 5 of 10. Sure, we have a footnote that explains that the weapon was originally reported to be an AR-15 and was later identified as an MCX. However, people are likely to skip the footnotes. The material in the actual article text should be correct. The footnotes justify why the text was included. We should NOT include material that is shown to be wrong in RSs. Springee (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, misleading the readers is not encyclopedic.
We could let the 6 of 10 stand and then include that it is 4 of 10 also. And we have a reliable source in the article that says 13 uses of the AR-15 in MS in the last 35 years and 4 uses in the last 3 years. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Where the heck are you getting the 4 out of 10 from? Please just the source, no text-wall. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Propose removing 6 of 10 from article[edit]

The source making the claim has been shown to be factually questionable. It isn't OK to put 6 of 10 in the article with a footnote since what we would be doing is publishing known incorrect information and then expecting the reader to find the footnote explaining that it isn't correct. The 5 of 10 statement at least addressed that problem. So as a source that has been shown to be incorrect I suggest removing it. We can still mention the 5 shootings since they can be independently sourced. Alternatively, if we can find an different source for a similar claim we should use that. Springee (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Recommend taking this to Dispute Resolution - the wikipolicy position on this is ambiguous and there are valid and entrenched arguments on both sides. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard may be the best opportunity to hammer out a workable consensus; the slow edit war has to stop somehow. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I should note that dispute resolution is a purely voluntary process; but since both @Springee: and @Waleswatcher: have made solid points and since how we report a reliable source in a situation like this is ambiguous, I would encourage both of them to consent to participation in this process. I have volunteered at DRN occasionally but am obviously too involved to serve in that capacity here. But I do hope the two of you can find an agreeable solution that will at least ameliorate the others' concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You sure that DRN is equipped for this? As I understand it, DRN is an informal procedure generally intended for small content disputes. However, we have about ten, many entrenched, participants here. There are about four things in that one sentence that are currently in dispute. Do we say five or six? Do we name the Pulse shooting? Do we include a footnote? Do we use the LA Times article as a source? Potentially there are more questions to ask. Urh. Worth a shot I guess. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If Waleswatcher and Springee can come up with a compromise they're both satisfied with, I will support it. That's at least a third of the involved editors. I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article, but that's not going to happen so I consider that a secondary concern to this specific dispute. I hope that some of the other involved editors will see things my way - in that compelling arguments have been made by Springee and Waleswatcher and that an agreement they would co-sign would be a solid compromise position on which to hang consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to hear from some of the editors who have discussed this in the past. This is one of those issues that has never really been solved despite WW's restoration of the 6 of 10 claim. This content has been disputed here [[10]], here [[11]], here [[12]] and here [[13]]. This has never been stable, accepted text. It was only fatigue that allowed it to remain for a while. I would suggest we find a different reference to sidestep the whole issue. We avoided the problem here [[14]] by saying semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or similar. I'm less OK with that solution in this article but perhaps that would be a compromise solution. We can keep the footnote discussing the issue and the text would be correct regardless of how one classifies the MCX. Springee (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution is for small disputes with two editors. This is clearly not that and please stop the aspersions Simonm223, your thoughts are well documented and do not need repeating.
I agree with the removing 6 of 10 false claim from article as in its current form it can not be substantiated.
WW has not produced even a vaguely legitimate argument, with ignoring challenges and just repeating himself. The Washington Post article in no way supports his claim, it seems like he is at this point just grasping for straw's, and looking like original research. The Post explicitly states the MCX is not a AR and also clears up why some early initial report got it wrong based on the mistake made by the police (that they later admitted and addressed).
His only source linked (since the start of this 20 days ago) is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) and the Insider reported it was based on the initial mistake made by the police.
He has now taken to just place the content in the article based on original research and consensus of one. This is starting to look like disruptive.-72bikers (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It's hardly an aspersion when A) You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten, and B) I didn't even mention you by name. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Here you go... Not an aspersion when it's a statement of fact.Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Surely even you are aware what you liked to shows no such support for your claim of "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," and by not showing support of the aspersions, it is clear your actions are just civility restriction of uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.-72bikers (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
We are rather close to a compromise, it seems to me. We've more or less converged on a footnote, although we might want to edit it depending on what happens with the main text. Also there is no dispute over five of the ten mass shootings. The only issue is that RSs differ on whether to consider the MCX an AR-style rifle. So, one option would be to change the text to read something like "...used in six (or five, depending on whether the rifle used in the Pulse shooting is considered AR-15 style [footnote with citations]) of the..." or something along those lines. Springee, what do you think of that? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I see the compromise you are trying to make but it doesn't really address the reason why people have been unhappy with this from the word go and looks like a way to backdoor the Pulse shooting into this article. The proposed edit adds too much to the text into the article. Think about what this statement's purpose should be in context of the article text. It's purpose is to say "Wikipedia is talking about this because...". Adding the additional material in the text just muddles things. The purpose of that section isn't to focus on the 5 vs 6 nor even produce a list of which specific shootings used the rifle. Instead it's to hit on the controversy around the rifle due to it's use in mass shootings. To that end I'm really not sure we need to even include the list of specific shootings. The five could be linked via the also see. But I think enough people would be unhappy to see that list removed from the primary text so I'm not going to push for that change. At the end of the day we have RS's speaking specifically to the question "is the MCX and AR-15" that say no. We don't have RSs that specifically say the MCX is an AR-15. Instead we only have RSs that just followed previous incorrect reports and repeated claims without addressing the question. It's also worth noting that SIG makes an AR-15 based rifle, the SIG Sauer SIG516 and the SIG_Sauer_SIGM400. Those would fall under the scope of this article. Conversely, the MCX was developed from the MPX which was a replacement for the MP5. Anyway, I'm not OK with adding the controversy into the text itself. I think following the mass shooting article's text is a decent compromise. Conversely, let's keep the stated number at 5 since we only have 5 that are without question correct.
As a bit of a side note I think we need to keep the scope of this article in context. This is not an article about rifles that look somewhat similar to AR-15s. It was a spin off of the Colt AR-15 article meant to capture generic versions of the Colt AR-15 rifle. The Colt article describes the operating mechanism of the AR-15. That description also applies here. There are several places in this article that talk about the parts of an AR-15. Once you have a rifle that no longer operates like the Colt AR-15 it may be a related rifle but it isn't an AR-15. The M-14 is related to the M1 Garand but we don't call the M-14 an M1 style rifle. I wasn't happy with the naming of this article since I felt it didn't adequately scope the article's topic. Your attempts to push the MCX into the category of AR-15 style illustrates the point. The scope of the article when split off was essentially "Colt AR-15 clones" not "Colt AR-15 clones and derivations that have totally different operating mechanisms and parts". Springee (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Back tracking and suggesting a different compromise: Ok, I'm going to backtrack from something I just said and a reply I gave below. What about changing the text to 6 of 10, include Mr rnddude's footnote (or very similar) and then remove the list of shootings from the text? Springee (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The list of shootings is very important. In fact the use of an AR in those shootings is the most notable part of this entire article, and I suspect it's the reason the majority of readers come here. The whole mass shootings section should be expanded and moved up. Your "compromise" would overturn months of work here on trying to find some acceptable language and balance (not that it's been achieved, but this would make it much worse). So no, that's not a remotely acceptable compromise. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, if I am looking up mass shootings, that is what I search for, not AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
WW, that is speculation on your part. We don't know that readers come to this article to see that list. Anyway, I suggested two different compromises. One was to use Mr rnddude's proposed sentence and footnote then remove the list. The alternative was to keep the list of five, and then change the text to follow the mass shooting article where we say semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and similar. The exact text isn't critical but the important thing is that it no longer specifically implies all six were AR-15s. The third option, which I don't think you like, is we get the source declared to be shown inaccurate then thrown out as a RS for the claim being made. That's a bit of a baby with the bathwater option but given this material has been disputed since it was originally added I don't think you can comfortably fall back on "long standing". This is simply an unresolved issue. Springee (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually it's not speculation, I backed it up repeatedly with pageview evidence showing that readership spiked hugely after shooting incidents. I'm not going to rehash that again since you just ignore it and it's not particularly relevant. I've also suggested a compromise above, I'll wait for further comments on that. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
All that proves is that after a mass shooting involving an AR-15 they look up the rifle, not that this why the majority of users come here overall. I bet the mass shooting articles get similar spikes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That is not even relevant to the discussion, and as pointed out it proves nothing. -72bikers (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WW your claim "And we have several sources that say the opposite". WW you have claimed there are many sources that claim the MCX is a AR-15. To date (since the start of this 20 days ago) you have only produced one source and it is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) and the Insider reported it was based on the initial mistake made by the police.

This does not support a claim many sources dispute what the MCX is. Perhaps instead of telling use what you think it might be better to produce these sources, or just accept the facts. -72bikers (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • In looking at the LA Times article it's clear the writer is not careful when choosing his words or, alternatively, is trying to choose provocative terms even if they are inaccurate. Consider this phrase "the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle." By definition a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. Springee (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that as well.-72bikers (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Including Pulse[edit]

Assuming we stick with the six of ten language, we should add the Pulse shooting to the list to be consistent with the source (and just to add up to six). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • It should be five of ten since there are only five. Sources have clarified that the Pulse shooting was not a AR-15 style rifle. So why would we list it? PackMecEng (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As long as we have an agreed five or six I don't care. Let's just get this wrapped up. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
PackMecEng, because multiple reliable sources do not agree with that (see above). Simonm223, regarding your reversion of my edit, I agree there's no consensus for six over five. But there's also no consensus for five over six. Hence (until/unless such a consensus is formed) by the rules that govern this article I think we have to go back to six, since that was the long-standing language. Would you please consider self-reverting? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes they disagree because we have sources that came out right after it happened and then sources that came out later with what actually happened. The more recent and correct sources should be used and the older incorrect sources discarded per policy. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Including the Pulse shooting is clearly someone not listening to reason. We have several RS's that say the MCX is not an AR-15. We have sources explaining how the weapon used in the Pulse shooting was misreported to be an AR-15. 5 of 10 is the compromise solution. Otherwise remove the source as it has been shown to be in error. Springee (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
And we have several sources that say the opposite. That's why we need the footnote. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
We have no RSs that say the opposite. What you have is RSs that in passing don't differentiate. You have RSs that still reference the original incorrect information. Springee (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This could be seen as a attempt to include original research. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We go with what the source says, or we do not use it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm in two minds. Statements of fact: 1) The LA times states six. 2) Six is incorrect, at least as cited to other sources discounting the Pulse nightclub shooting. Solutions: 1) Correct to five, and put in a footnote explaining the error. This may be improper editorial synthesis. 2) The LA times states six, therefore we state six. However, it's acceptable practice to include an explanatory footnote noting that the Pulse nightclub shooting may not be considered an example. If we do this, we stick to the meaning of the sources. I prefer option 2, because it avoids any OR, SYNTH, or NPOV dispute that is likely to arise. Such as:

As of February 2018, AR-15 variants were the primary weapons used in six[a] of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history.

The above is merely a suggestion on how to go about sticking to the meaning intended of each individual source, without editorial synthesis to correct misinformation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not concerned with being correct – as it's a tertiary source that acts as a compendium of known knowledge – but with being verifiable. The only way to keep Wikipedia's factual accuracy in check is to use the most up-to-date and highest quality sources wherever possible. May I suggest that footnotes get separate from references, as that will reduce potential confusion. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Six is incorrect according to some sources, and correct according to some others (all reliable). For the fifth time or so, it's transparently obvious why that is: "AR-15 style rifle" is not a term with a clear definition. (Nor is it particularly important precisely where you draw the line.) Waleswatcher (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Please list the RSs you feel support the specific claim that the MCX is an AR-15. This will at least allow people to judge if the source is accurate for the claim it is being used to support. This is especially important given we have at least 2 if not 4 sources. In a previous discussion here [[15]], Niteshift36 listed the following The Washington Post [[16]], Business Insider [[17]], CNBC [[18]] and Tampa Bay Times[[19]] Note that Niteshift32 is the only editor who was involved in the previous discussion but hasn't weighed in here. Since the previous discussion was about the exact same material (added to both articles at the same time) this is an appropriate notification. Springee (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
A excellent suggestion, this should have been fleshed out long ago with all of the repeated claim's of many sources support.-72bikers (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Busy IRL, but first off, that Washington Post story says explicitly it's in the family of AR rifles ("all but removes from" = logically "is in, but marginally"). Then there's the source I linked to above that says flat out it's an AR, while noting it's also an MCX. More in a bit when I have time. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Washington Post "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles."
Saying " aesthetically similar" clearly states that's it's appearance is similar. They also clearly state "internally a different beast" that it is a completely different kind of rifle (not a AR). You are in no way going to convince others your argument is sound, trying to use the source that not only clears up the initial mistake made by the police, but then goes on to confirm the MCX is not a AR-15.
WW your claim "And we have several sources that say the opposite" seems incorrect. Your only source linked is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) one that went on the police error, as also mentioned in the Business Insider, It appears that Orlando Police Chief John Mina initially described the weapon as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" and media outlets ran with the classification, several dropping "style" from the description.
It is clear there is no dispute on what weapon used. -72bikers (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The statement "all but removing it from the family of..." means, in English, that it remains in the family. So the Washington Post agrees the MCX is in the AR family, if marginally. Then there is this NBC news piece, which says "Now a descendant of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle — a Sig Sauer MCX..." was used and refers to it as an "AR-15 Style Rifle" in the headline. I'm sure there are more (I found these immediately); these more than suffice to show there is disagreement among RSs.Waleswatcher (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That article starts with a statement that the MCX isn't an AR-15. The reason why the author wrote it was to make it clear these aren't the same rifle. It's a horrid twist of reason and logic to take that one sentence and claim that is the reason why the author is actually saying they are the same thing. Springee (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
WW you have not produced even a vaguely legitimate argument, with ignoring challenges and just repeating yourself. The Washington Post article in no way supports your claim, it seems like you are at this point just grasping for straw's, and looking like original research. The Post explicitly states the MCX is not a AR and also clears up why some early initial report got it wrong based on the mistake made by the police (that they later admitted and addressed).
Your only source linked (since the start of this 20 days ago) is the source mentioned in the Business Insider ("AR-15 Rifle Used in Orlando Massacre Has Bloody Pedigree," an NBC News headline reads). It was published June 12, 2016 (same day as the shooting) and the Insider reported it was based on the initial mistake made by the police.
You have now taken to just place the content in the article based on original research and consensus of one. This is starting to look like disruptive. -72bikers (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no dispute about the accuracy of the other incidents in reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources saying it was an AR-15 [20], [21], [22].Slatersteven (talk)

These sources highlight the issue I have with the "it is" sources. Consider we have several articles that specifically address why the MCX isn't an AR-15. These three simply don't dive into that issue at all. They don't question or address the "not AR-15" claim. Instead they simply repeat earlier claims that the Pulse shooting was one of several that used an AR-15. That means they didn't consider the question. I've said this before, consider the Ford Pinto case. We have articles that restate as a matter of fact/faith that the Pinto was a fire trap and that Ford did a cost calculation comparing the cost of fixing the Pinto with the cost of litigation. But the articles that make that claim aren't actually investigating it's validity, they are simply repeating it. In that case there were a few articles that specifically looked at that question. All said the conventional wisdom was wrong. We have the same here. 100% of the sources that actually address the question, is the MCX and AR-15, say no. The "balancing" sources simply repeat "conventional wisdom" with no support or analysis. Given we that we even have sources that say why this confusion started in the first place (early reports which misidentified the rifle) this should be an open and shut case. Springee (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
USA Today "AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX)" does not infer explicitly it is a AR-15. I would also point out this source concludes there research with the help from Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries that AR rifles were used only 13 times (as of Feb. 14, 2018) in the last 35 year. You ignore this and deny RS content from the article but try and cherry pick something of your liking. CNN "AR-15-type rifles" Time "AR-15-style rifles" just generalized comments made in a sensationalized way. It also in no way disputes the sources that explicitly state that the MCX is not a AR and why the mistake was made because of the police error, that they later corrected, so we have the police on the record saying they made a mistake calling the MCX a AR. I do give you credit for at least linking something though. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this really highlights a problem with the title of this article and its scope. Several editors are right to point out that "AR-15 style" is not a clear definition. The original scope of this article was meant to be the non-Colt brand AR-15s. But with a tittle like "AR-15 style" that does open it to scope creep. The MCX could be described as "AR-15 style" but not mean the rifle is generically an AR-15. One person says "AR-15 style" to mean similar but not the same thing while a second says "AR-15 style" meaning a generic clone of the Colt AR-15. I think the article should include some sort of scope statement and perhaps a change of title. We can revisit the discussions that resulted in this article being spun off such as this one here [[23]]. Springee (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, include: as per the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Why include when the source has been shown to be incorrect by RSs. The MCX isn't an AR-15. That fact shouldn't be in dispute. The real question, one that has been raised since this LA Times article was added, is why keep an article that has been shown to be wrong? Especially a fluff article with little to no substance? Springee (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
So, they clearly claim it was one, they do not need to address why. The issue is that they claimed it was one, not that they are correct. Thus it is clear it was not "just one paper" repeating this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That would matter if we were reporting on how the rifle is sometimes misidentified or what sources claim. We aren't. We are saying what actually occurred. If we want to balance RSs stating the MCX isn't an AR-15 that needs to be done with sources that specifically address that point, not ones that take the claim for granted. Also, we have to keep in mind the scope of this article. This article is about the generic copies of the Colt AR-15. It is not about similar or derivative rifles. They have their own articles. Springee (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No we are using a source that includes it, and then altering what the source says (in effect), the source does not say 5 out of 10. It is clear that this source is not alone in that. This is not a technical discussion as to what is or is not an AR-15, it is saying what the media have claimed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I proposed a several solutions to that (as have many other editors since the issue was first raised). First, we have RSs that specifically address why MCX!=AR-15. The only thing we have on the other side is sources that just repeat "common knowledge". Basically we have no sources that say why MCX=AR-15. As for how we handle it, we have looked at a number of options. One is to simply remove that source from the article. It's not a strong source, it's a throw away, click bait type article and it has failed verification (at least 4 sources specifically address the issue) and it has other questionable descriptions (semi-automatic assault rifle). RSing rules suggest this is the best course since the facts are not specifically critical to the AR-15 article. Instead this article is used as the coatrack to include a specific list of mass shootings in the article. A second option is to WP:IAR which can apply here. That gave us the footnote that explains the error in the article while still keeping the article as a source for other information as well as justifying the "of ten" part of the discussion. Yet another option would be follow the Mass Shooting in the US article and change the phrasing so we say "semi-automatic rifles..." Thus we MCX is included in the group. But that opens the question what do we do with the list of shootings. It's not clear why this list is here and it has been a point of controversy since added. Still, there is no debate that 5 of the 10 did use an AR-15 rifle. There are compromise solutions here but perhaps we need to look in another direction. Perhaps the real solution is find a different shock value claim (that's what the 6 of 10 claim is) that passes venerability and use it instead.
But I was just addressing the point "only one source has said it was an AR-15". I have already said I think the best option is less specific wording, but if we keep this source our text must reflect what the source says, and not what we take it to be wrong about, we can then explain why their figures are wrong in the footnote.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. And with three editors opposed, there is plainly no consensus for Springee's recent edit. I'm asking them to self-revert. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I'm OK with the less specific language option and removing the LA Times source. Rather than fighting to remove the list why not say the rifle has been used in recent mass shootings including... (current list of five)? Springee (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure it is clear enough, it may be seen as implying all of them, nor does it make clear it is actually the deadliest (rather then most).Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there a different article we can cite? A number of sources cite the 10 most deadly mass shootings. Do we need an article that specifically says "these used AR-15s" to say which used AR-15s? I mean it's easy to verify that a particular shooting included an AR-15. Springee (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Concur with Slatersteven it's the deadliness of this string of recent shootings that is the relevant thing, not the specific number. That's why I was supportive of "five of the ten deadliest" with a footnote - it preserves what really matters from the source. Frankly, the source allows us to avoid WP:OR while still getting at something that I think we all know - the thing that makes this style of rifle unique compared to the other weapons used by mass shooters is the number of people its users can kill. Handguns are used more frequently, but mass shootings committed with handguns don't end up like Las Vegas, and that's the thing I think is going to interest readers about this gun in relation to this issue. Likewise, outside the specific context of the US gun debate, I'd posit nobody cares if an AR-15 is an assault rifle. It's a readily available rifle that a motivated person can use to kill many, many people.
And if there's another source, I'd be 100% down with using a source that would allow us to untie this particular Gordian knot.Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hence why I say "around half", it also covers us for any minor changes in this number. As to more sources [[24]], [[25]]. But this may well change, hence why I think it is best not to specify a number.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

What about using this Time article? [[26]]. It has basically the same information but notes that the MCX is similar to the AR-15 rather than stating it is one. Springee (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
So we keep 6 out of 10?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The source provided explicitly says 6 out of 10. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The source notes that the MCX is similar but not the same as the AR-15. This would allow us to use the "AR-15 or similar... 6 of 10..." in the article. I would still oppose listing the Pulse shooting since it is the "or similar". Springee (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Still dislike giving an exact figure but this is acceptable if we must.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I am entirely fine with adding "or similar" - it still captures the relevant point. And frankly, we're dealing with a category of firearms with vague boundaries in the public consciousness. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with "about half" vs "6 of 10". So are we OK with the following: Change source to Time. State AR-15 or similar (we can use language from the mass shooting article). Change "6 of 10" to... OK I can't think of the exact phrase. What if we just leave that as, Slatersteven, please suggest. Springee (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new text[edit]

Proposal 1[edit]

Proposal 1 Change

"As of February 2018, AR-15 variants were the primary weapons used in six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"


"AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"

That should cover us for a while.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support We might want to tweak going forward a little, but it's good enough as a starting point to get something more agreeable to consensus on the article space. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't think that's an improvement, for two reasons. First, "the deadliest mass shootings" is vague to the point of making the statement wrong. If you include the top 100 the statement is probably false. If you only include the top 5 it's again probably false (because it would be more than half). Second, we debated this endlessly, and finally settled on "six of the ten deadliest mass shootings". I really don't see what's wrong with that. I do agree we can change the language to "AR-15s or similar rifles" - in fact I suggested something similar quite a while ago. If we just made that change and left "six of the ten deadliest mass shootings" alone, I'd support. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
the deadliest mass shootings is already in there, this is not new text.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It is new text because the article originally said "five/six of the ten deadliest" not "around half of the deadliest". Note the word I'm highlighting and its significance to the statement. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
For once I agree with Waleswatcher. If we look at the single deadliest mass shooting in the U.S., Las Vegas 2017, then it's 100%. If we look at the five deadliest, then its 60% – excluding Virginia Tech and Orlando – or 80% – only excluding Virginia Tech. Ten deadliest = 50% or 60% depending on source because of Orlando. Hundred deadliest? a lot less than 50%. It does need to be made clear that we are talking specifically about the ten deadliest mass shootings, because that's what is being discussed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with the change in reference from the LA Times article to the more substantial Time magazine article. What about changing the text to "Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or similar have been used in approximately half of the deadliest mass shootings in American history" ? I'm also OK with Slatersteven's suggested text. Springee (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK lets also try another alternative

Proposal 2[edit]

Proposal 2 "AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the 10 of the deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as a compromise solution. Otherwise we're just going to keep fighting over whether it's five or six. "Around half of the ten" covers both arguments. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I'll support this one too. Perfect is the enemy of good here people. There's been a good faith effort by a lot of editors to craft something we can all live with. At this point, I'm concerned with key messages, not specifics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (still) As compromise (edit)with the changing of source to Time magazine article Springee (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Its also borderline gibberish, "AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history"

To elucidate, I mean that my second proposal flows badly "5 of the 10 of the deadliest" is just plain bad English. We can leave out the second "of the".Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Reads better.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Still oppose It's harder to read, longer, and less precise than 6/10. Still not an improvement, but it might be more readable like this:
  • Support Seems like a reasonable compromise that should finally put a rest to this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Springee I did indeed put it in the wrong section. PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Either this or proposal 1 is fine with me. 6/10 should not be used, nor "more than half" since that is simply inaccurate, given that Pulse was not committed using an AR-15-style rifle as defined by this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 3[edit]

Proposal 3

"In more than half of the 10 deadliest shootings in modern American history, the primary weapons used were AR-15s or similar rifles." Again, it's clearer (and more precise, and shorter) to say "In six of the ten deadliest shootings in modern American history, the primary weapons used were AR-15s or similar rifles." Waleswatcher (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Support 6/10 is an inaccurate claim based on misinformation and should not be in the article. "Around half" is fine. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is not at all the proposal I supported, and whoever refactored this mess has completely changed the context of my comment. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose50% is not more then half. Change "In more than half" to "In around half" and that reflects all the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I 'm confused. I thought the whole point of your proposed wording - "AR-15s or similar rifles" - was to include the MCX used in the Pulse shooting. So that's 6/10, isn't it? Both the LA Times and the new Time magazine source (that I think we've all agreed on using?) say 6/10. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I have made it clear (for a long time) I dislike such specific numbers as they are open to sudden change (irrespective of the inclusion (or not) of Pulse). The main point for me is I do not want to have to reexamine the text every time some nutter with a gun decides to make a name for themselves. Moreover I am unsure about inclusion of the Pulse shootings, this is called a compromise, which given my main concern means I cannot support "over 50%".Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the point in making the wording slightly vaguer is to respect the fact that different sources report some of the shootings differently. This is largely because there is a verifiable variance in public perception as to what constitutes an AR-15 type rifle. Is it enough that it looks like an AR-15? That the controls are functionally similar? That it have interchangeable parts with an AR-15? The truth is that different sources have different answers for that question. By making the language a bit more vague we're able to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice that reflects this variation in opinion into what constitutes one of these weapons. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, I thought that was the point of the new wording "AR-15s or similar rifles" was to include MCX without dispute. Otherwise I really don't see the point of any of this - there's no dispute about the other 5. Not to mention that both the LA Times and the new Time magazine source (that I think we've agreed on using?) say 6/10. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 4[edit]

As of February 2018, in 5 or 6 of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history, the primary weapons used were AR-15 style rifles, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting; sources disagree on whether the SIG MCX used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is considered an AR-15 style rifle.

  • Support We need a solution which honors ALL reliable sources. Editors are reminded that excluding reliable sources is a violation best editorial practices, as well as discretionary sanctions. The sources are sufficiently strong that by policy they may not be excluded, nor may they be segregated to a footnote, and Wikipedia may not say or imply in text or in footnote that the SIG MCX is or is not an AR-15 style rifle. Developing definitive consensus language across multiple reliable sources, when some editors believe some of those sources are flat out wrong and should be excluded, is not going to work, so embrace the suck. This proposal respects our readers' ability to form their own conclusion; by policy we may NOT do it for them, so let's take it easy on ourselves and move on to expanding this section to reflect coverage in reliable sources. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:57 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Sock of HughD. Springee (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a bit too ORy, yes we can find sources that say 6 out of 10, are there actually any sources that say 5 out of 10? If a source say 6 out of 10 so must we. Also (and again) this will have to be revised after each mass shooting, a less vague sentence will not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion[edit]

I'm a bit confused about what are we approving/opposing here. Is this the specific wording in question AR-15's or similar rifles were the primary weapons used in around half of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history? It seems like most are in favor of the general change but we are having trouble getting the exact text right. In general I prefer statements to the effect of "approximately/about/around half of the ten deadliest". I would prefer to avoid the word "primary" since I don't know that we are certain the AR-15 was always the "primary" weapon in all cases. If we just say "were used in" we avoid that claim (though I think in most cases it was true). I was thinking about putting the change in the article but I want to make sure we are in agreement first. Springee (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to make it a bit clearer what we're !voting on in each case. I hope @Waleswatcher: won't mind that I edited their post slightly to do this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that helps some but, for example I look at Red Rock Canyon's "support" and it says 6/10 is wrong and suggests "around" vs "more than half" which is WW's proposal. I'm also not sure if PackMecEng is supporting ""In more than half of the 10" or "in around half". Springee (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to them to clarify their own responses. I just wanted to make the proposals clear now that we have three on the go. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that Red Rock Canyon was supporting Proposal 2; but they should clarify that for themself. I see that PackMecEng has already clarified their !vote. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move the choices to different sub headings. But thank you both for mentioning it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
So far it does seem like consensus is coalescing behind proposal #2. I'd suggest we leave this open for a while but I'd also suggest we use it as an interim wording pending feedback from new parties. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll second that. Springee (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Pearce, Matt (14 February 2018). "Mass shootings are getting deadlier. And the latest ones all have something new in common: The AR-15". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 11 May 2018.
  2. ^ Howerton, Jason (June 14, 2016). "The gun the Orlando shooter used wasn't actually an AR-15". Business Insider. Retrieved October 6, 2018.
  3. ^ Gibbons-Neff, Thomas (June 14, 2016). "The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn't change much". Washington Post. Retrieved October 6, 2018.
  1. ^ The LA Times identified six shootings including the Pulse Nightclub Shooting.[1] Several outlets reporting on the Pulse nightclub shooting erroneously identified the rifle used as an AR-15. It was later clarified by [investigating?] officials that the rifle used was actually a SIG MCX.[2][3]

Duplicate references[edit]

this and this are almost exactly the same. They are in the same newspaper, have the same authors, are dated a few months apart, have the same quotes from the same sources, etc. I didn't go over them line by line, but the only apparent difference is in the first few paragraphs. Do we really need to cite two nearly identical articles for the same thing at the end of the same sentence? And as a rhetorical question, do we really need to immediately revert editors that make obvious and basic improvements to this article (like removing a duplicate reference) because we have disagreed with them in the past? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather that adding yet another accusation of bad faith why not as 72bikers why both were included. I don't honestly recall but I do remember that there was a lot of back and forth. You just ignored that, didn't ask first and made a change to contested material. Not smart. If the articles really are redundant and there was no reason to include both I will self revert. In the mean time please slow down and discuss changes first. Springee (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"I don't honestly recall but I do remember that there was a lot of back and forth. You just ignored that, didn't ask first and made a change to contested material."
Ignored what exactly? Link, please.
"If the articles really are redundant and there was no reason to include both I will self revert."
What do you mean, "if"? In the time it took you to type that you could have clicked on the links I provided and checked yourself. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
They are similar but not the same, they both have distinct content. And with substantial content to support, 3 citations is not overkill. And Springee is correct this was addressed long ago you. You tried repeatedly to keep this content out of the article and recently trying to refute it with claims journalist are experts and now trying to remove its references just after trying to remove the statement altogether.
What are the optoics of you trying to rehash it now? -72bikers (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"They are similar but not the same, they both have distinct content." What is the difference that justifies including both for what's being cited there? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The beginning of each article is different, but the main portions which support our article content are identical. The same source publishing the same content twice does not increase its prominence among reliable sources or provide additional support to a claim. –dlthewave 03:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
They also have different bylines.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? The authors are the same, the only difference is the date (which are a few months apart). Obviously, those two wrote an article and then a few months later updated/modified it slightly and it was posted/published again. There's no reason to cite both versions, it's analogous to citing two printings of a book. Waleswatcher (talk)
Sorry, They reversed names and I read it as different people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears the quoted material has been used, likely as wire feed, in a number of articles. I'm now inclined to say remove it as redundant. I'm sure we can find additional instances of the two experts being quoted if weight for their comments is a concern. I will self revert. Springee (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

They are not exactly the same in the body of the content, headings and the compiled data. The content in the article is substantial hence the 3 citations. With the current discussion at the noticeboard on this content looking like more weight is going to be placed on experts, there is going to be unique quotes from both. 72bikers (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The quotes are identical in those two articles, aren't they? So what's your point? Anyway it seems there is a consensus for removal of the duplicate. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The reference is longstanding content and should not be removed without consensus.72bikers (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is not required to challenge and remove content. –dlthewave 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
All of this is solely in the removed source. Expert commentary as the NPOV discussion seem to be in the favor of including more expert view over journalist speculation.
For example, Hazen says the AK-47 — and its semiautomatic variants — is a "far more wicked gun than an AR-15." The AK-47 variants can hold just as many rounds as the AR-15, are more reliable and use larger 7.62 mm rounds as opposed to the standard AR-15's .223 rounds
Some killers might be drawn to the AR-15 because they are the "weapon of choice" for the military and police. But ironically, the police "choose it because it is under-powered, Hazen said, "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." The Army is considering moving to a higher-caliber rifle partly because that would make the weapon more deadly.
Speaking through tears, Stephen Willeford, the man some are calling a hero for engaging in a shootout with the Texas church gunman on Sunday, says he was afraid for his life but that he believes God gave him the skills needed to face the shooter. (Nov. 6) AP video
I think this last part of Stephen stepping up and surely mortally wounding the shooter with his own AR-15 should be mentioned in the AR-15 article. -72bikers (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Why?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

James Fox supporting Blair and Hazen[edit]

@Waleswatcher: removed this sentence from the article, also Dr. James Fox a professor of criminology shares the copycat effect view. [[27]]. I believe it was initially meant to be supported by this reference [[28]] (removed here [[29]]). I think the removal based on the reference not specifically containing "AR-15" would be incorrect. Depending on context the generalized "assault weapon" term is likely to encompass AR-15 rifles. However, I can't tell what part of the video is meant to support the sentence Waleswatcher removed. @72bikers:, could you point out what part of the video supports the article claim? For the time being I support WW's removal as, even with the reference included, I can't see that it passes verification. Springee (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It would appear we are no longer allowed to add a supporting expert (James Fox) to support the other two recognized experts, "Not in either cited reference, and makes the BALANCE/DUE issue even more severe". Its not really clear how experts on a relating content outweigh in a article.
Springee I placed the relevant content section parameters in the edit summary, at 15 minutes and 50 seconds until 22 minutes and 50 seconds "from 15:50 to 22:50 he speaks to how the media tries to get him to sensationalized some claim by filtering the facts to most this or most that, and how they provoke copycat effect."
He speaks to how the media is always trying to get him to support largest this or most used that. He states that by the media specifically trying to make some sensationalized claim its the biggest this or badest that or most used this, promotes a copycat effect. He does not state any specific weapon used in the copycatting just that the medias specific sensational claims provoke specific copying. So he is simply saying if the media is making sensational claims about how deadly the AR is that's what they copycat.
This source could also be used in contrast of this "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" being the facts clearly say this media claim is incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. We could also use it directly because of the medias AR weapon of choice claim, gives reason to use foxes views to support the AR copying by Blair and Hazen. Fox is clearly supporting Blair and hazen, who also claim copying because of what they see in the media.
  • Hazen added, "It’s a copycat thing. When they see other mass shooters use it, it reinforces the image in their mind that this is the evil tool to use.”
  • "…and copying them, or it can be using the same type of weapon other shooters have used if you’re planning a mass shooting.” -72bikers (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
There are definitely WP:PEACOCK concerns over also Dr. James Fox a professor of criminology.. We're effectively saying "and scientist James Fox, a scientist" - which is a no-no. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

October 26 edits[edit]

Though, per WP:AGF I would prefer not to treat an ip address making an edit as a sock puppet prior to an investigation, I will suggest that the extensive edit made this morning was probably not WP:DUE - suggest bringing this discussion to talk prior to re-insertion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering about the assertion, is there any reason to think this was a sock, and if so of whom?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the assertion is regarding HughD. I only know that somebody bombards both the article and talk page with thousands of bytes of edits every now and then, and that it always gets reverted. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The pattern is a HughD IP sock. The blocked editor has a long history of such behavior using both IP and sock accounts [30]]. The IP address is located in the Chicago area just like the ones that NeilN (talk · contribs) has reverted here [[31]], and here [[32]] and in many other instances like here [[33]]. This is the same IP editor who initiated the RfC that we recently discussed here [[34]]. Rewarding the sock's efforts by allowing the material to stand just encourages more bad behavior. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll reach out to a checkuser informally. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I just prefer not to use WP:DENY on suspicion absent any sort of investigation. The admin I contacted is very good at dealing with sock puppetry and if this IP is found to be a sock puppet I'll gladly self-revert my restoration of their comments. Just avoiding WP:BITE for WP:AGF reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
My computer autofilled the "DENY" entry. At some point NielN suggested EVADE was the correct tag. Springee (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, admins have confirmed they're a sock. I see that the comments have already been removed again, I'm fine with that. WRT their article space edit - yeah, that was a massive inclusion and WP:DUE would definitely apply so I'm not losing any sleep. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

not a list of mass shootings[edit]

This is not a list of mass shootings using AR-15's, the list is only of the most deadly (and 10 does not even come close).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur, but I reverted addition of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting because it was unsourced. I might have requested a source citation if the added text stood alone; but splicing it into existing text gave the erroneous impression it was sourced by the following citation. I hope better information becomes available; because early accounts seem inconclusive about the model of rifle carried by the shooter, and which of the four available firearms were used to cause casualties. Thewellman (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite:, please see this discussion as well as the several above it. Springee (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To soon for the list of most notable. It should be removed pending discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it should be kept pending discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That is not how consensus required works... PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed. This was the deadliest attack against Jews in the history of the USA. It is everywhere, and just about every source mentions the rifle. Why anyone thinks it should not be mentioned in a section on mass shootings with these rifles is hard to fathom.Waleswatcher (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove pending discussion: The material has already been removed more than once which now means it requires consensus for inclusion. This article is not meant to be a list of every shooting or even mass shooting that was committed in part or in total with an AR-15 type rifle. That is what the mass shooting list is for. In this article we can cover the controversy around the AR-15 rifle due to it's use in mass shootings. To establish the foundation for this discussion the article lists 5 shootings due to the fact that they are members of the 10 most deadly mass shooting in the US. With that foundation of WHY the article should discuss mass shootings there is no reason to list new ones. If there is a wish to create a list of every mass shooting that used an AR-15 why not create that as a list topic then link it to the mass shooting section here? Springee (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That might actually be the best idea. It should be very easy to source as well; we might get a featured list out of it. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Black Kite The article is under consensus required. Why would you reinsert it? PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Because it seemed ridiculous to have a list of the most notable shootings without one of the most notable. Either have a proper list, or remove the whole thing. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not a list of the most notable. It's a list of the deadliest. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is the synagogue shooting one of 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history. No? Then it can't be included in the list per WP:OR. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not just a list of the deadliest; The Port Arthur Massacre is mentioned. –dlthewave 12:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The inclusion of Port Arthur significantly predates the references to the ten deadliest in US history - and whereas the 10 deadliest sentence is due for the preponderance of the AR-15 style rifle in especially deadly shootings, the inclusion of Port Arthur is due to the significant changes to Australian firearms law following that shooting. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)+
Also it is not part of that list, it is a separate paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. The sentence about the ten deadliest shootings and the paragraph about Port Arthur are not to be taken as part of a comprehensive list. Both were included for separate notability reasons and have distinct criteria. While I'm personally horrified by this obvious hate crime, and do believe it to be a notable event, the consensus on this page has been hard-won and is often fragile. As such we really try to avoid WP:RECENTISM as much as possible. If the discussion of this crime, in coming weeks, includes sustained discussion of the AR-15 style rifle the shooter used, we can look at if it's appropriate for inclusion on this page at that time. In the meantime it is definitely due inclusion at Mass shootings in the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Black Kite that section is specifically about the ten deadliest. As far as I know, this one is tied for 20th deadliest mass shooting in modern US history (post 1945) which... well... it's pretty terrifying when you consider that in the 20th and 21st century the only mass shooting in Canada that was as deadly as it was the École Polytechnique massacre. But I would suggest, with regard to notability that we should wait until WP:RECENTISM is less of an issue to adjudicate to what extent the specific firearm becomes relevant to this tragedy compared to the obvious blatant bigotry of the perpetrator in order to establish clearly that this incident is WP:DUE here in particular. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree Listing the 20 most deadliest shootings with AR-15 style rifles would be intricate detail here. In fact it's also likely that it wouldn't be appropriate for a standalone article either since the the scope of "massacres done with the most common rifle in the US" is trivial. --Pudeo (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Should be included It's true the Pittsburgh shooting shouldn't be in that list, since it's not one of the ten deadliest shootings (which is shocking in its own horrible way). But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. As a very notable attack it should be, just as Port Arthur is. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Port Arthur changed then law of nation, so far this has not even upset Donnies campaigning. When this has a real tangible effect on the firearms issue then it might be worth including, but as long as it is just more "thoughts and prayers" it is not more significant then any other mass shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Synagogue shooting[edit]

"The federal criminal complaint filed against Robert Bowers details the 29 federal criminal counts he’s charged with and the weapons he used during the shooting at Tree of Life Synagogue. (...) According to the complaint, Bowers had four weapons on him including three Glock .357 handguns as well as a Colt AR-15 model SP1" Source, which is an AR-15 style rifle. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone found a source indicating which firearm caused the wounds (fatal or non-fatal)? In the absence of such information, it seems inappropriate conjecture to credit (or blame) the AR-15 style rifle rather than the Glock pistols, which (in addition to their pre-event publicity) would seem to have a three to one probability advantage in this event. Thewellman (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"Bowers used a Colt AR-15 rifle and three Glock .357 handguns during the attack, police said." [35]. You raise a valid point, we may need to wait until specific details are released. –dlthewave 12:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ERROR IN Assaulted weapons and crime/Majors against illegal guns.[edit]

Hello, I just did two minor edits to the article. The second one included a passage about assault rifles being used in 25% of mass shootings.

However, when you click the link referenced to ( then it's obvious that there must have been a mix up. There are two figures in the article immediately next to each other. "25%" and "14 out of 93". This wikipedia article quotes the wrong number (25%) instead of the actual one (14 out of 93) from the analysis done by Mayors Aginst Illegal Guns.

I went ahead and corrected it.

Interesting, looks like a typo on the source. It should be 15%, the source in psmag article refers to this which is where they got the 14 out of 93. That source correctly calls it 15%. PackMecEng (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
We had a ding dong about this at the time. with me (more or less) saying we should not say 25%.Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ha yeah I remember that, figures. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)