Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
Flag of the United States.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
Flag of Germany.svg      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
Flag of France.svg      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
Flag of Italy.svg      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco / Armi
Flag of Poland.svg      Dyskusje:        Militaria / Broń
Flag of Russia.svg      Обсуждения:   Военная история

WP:GUNCRIME[edit]

I've written an essay addressing the criminal use of firearms. WP:GUNCRIME. It related directly to the scope of this project. Where's the best place to include it? Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • WP:GUNCRIME, or "User:Felsic2/Gun use" as the correct address is, isn't a serious WP essay but a POV-pushers' how-to-guide, hidden away in userspace to prevent others from editing it, and doesn't belong here. WP:GUNUSE is another redirect to the same page, so if you see any of those links posted somewhere it's just Felsic2's personal opinions, and not a page that carries any weight. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
All essays are expressions of the views of one or more editors. It's not uncommon to list relevant essays on project pages. Felsic2 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Felsic2, I think you should propose your essay for inclusion into the essay in this project. I think you may have some good points which could be included as gun writing principles, instead of argument, rebuttals, if the project team agree.CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas.W..."WP:GUNCRIME, or "User:Felsic2/Gun use" as the correct address is, isn't a serious WP essay but a POV-pushers' how-to-guide, hidden away in userspace to prevent others from editing it, and doesn't belong here. WP:GUNUSE is another redirect to the same page, so if you see any of those links posted somewhere it's just Felsic2's personal opinions, and not a page that carries any weight."--RAF910 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a personal essay. Per WP:ADVICEPAGE, this Wikiproject's guidelines have the same standing as a personal essay. Is there any disagreement over that issue? Felsic2 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Users, criminal and non-criminal[edit]

I have some questions about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines.

1) WP:NPOV says that article structure needs to be neutral. Two sections, "Criminal use" and "Users", establish very different criteria for inclusion. Many articles contain lists of police departments and military units, some obscure, and some of those lists are very long. At the same time, the inclusion of criminal uses is very restricted. Wouldn't it be more neutral to use the same criteria for both? Why aren't standard WP policies sufficient? Is there even a need for these sections?
2) Editors refer to the consensus in favor of them. Where were these guidelines approved? Was there a vote or community input?
3) What is the status of these guidelines in the scheme of things? This page about projects seems to say that guidelines like these have essentially no more weight in content decisions than personal essays: WP:ADVICEPAGE. Is it wrong?

I realize that some editors consider criminal use to be political content and so may prefer to avoid this discussion, but I hope someone involved in the project can reply. Felsic2 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines were set in place years ago, before I came on board. I don't think it is so much political as it is more of a tendency to clutter the article with basically trivia. We have similar guidelines for pop culture, video game use and movie use. Police and military use is a completely different ball of wax as their use and the purchase process is quite significant and notable. Criminal use is not as restrictive as you think unless you want to list every liquor store robbery where the thief used a Lorcin 380, or things of that nature. Something like the Pulse shooting in the SIG MCX article, I felt was completely appropriate. You would not get an argument out of me with P-32 PF-9 being the Zimmerman gun, either. But that's just me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the Zimmerman gun was a Keltec PF-9, not the P-32. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok, either way a cheap piece of plastic shit.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, many LE gun purchases are not notable at all, as the only source anyone can find is their own website. OTOH, many criminal uses are quite notable, being recorded in many secondary sources. So why not just use conventional WP policies to decide which to include? Felsic2 (talk)
I would disagree as they are often the subject of press releases and articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, so why don't we just rely on the sources to tell us what's important? If a lot of good sources report something, than it's more important than something reported by few or no independent sources. That's how the rest of Wikipedia operates. Felsic2 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for these "guidelines"? Felsic2 (talk)
If you want to dig through the history of that and pull it up, feel free, I know that you know how to do it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to find it. I saw one discussion among about a half dozen users back in 2007. But users keep referring to a consensus, so I'm assuming there's more than that. Felsic2 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I would say the point has a measure of consensus. Consider how long it has been part of the project page and how few people have chosen to try to challenge it. I would consider that implicit consensus. If you think it's wrong then perhaps you should propose a change and see where it goes. Springee (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What's their status? Felsic2 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you answered your own question.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping there's an answer that we can all agree upon. If this is represented this as a policy then maybe that's over-exaggerating its status. What importance in the regulatory scheme do you think it has? Felsic2 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think some initial users created their own general principles separate from WP:GUNS and never documented the principles in WP:GUNS, but still applied the principles and referred to the principles in discussions, edits and reverts, which caused confusion, at least to me. The only documented principles I know are in WP:GUNS which states it is not a WP Policy.

Criminal use I think is use of a gun in breaking a law, like killing people with a gun in a mass shooting, or in a theft. Users are people who use a gun, for military, civilian legal use or criminal use. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Functionality and availability are significant to the description of any device. Use of a specific firearm model by a public agency like a police department or military force implies a considered decision based on testing of affordable designs to determine which model meets required reliability standards within the available budget. Use by larger organizations implies more extensive testing, while use by multiple smaller organizations often reflects affordability or availability based on mass production. Firearms used by single individuals are more likely to be selected on the basis of availability. (for example, the home-made firearm used to shoot British MP Jo Cox)
I suggest use of a specific firearm by any individual is of trivial importance to that firearm article unless the source provides useful information about functionality. For example, a shooting situation where an individual is armed with different weapons, but one weapon either causes a greater number of casualties than the others, or causes more casualties per cartridge fired, implies that weapon was superior to the others. Inclusion of information from that source might be non-trivial if the source described the reason for that casualty difference: Did the other firearms jam? Was their ammunition defective? Was the selected firearm more accurate? Did the selected firearm use a more powerful cartridge to effectively penetrate shielding material or inflict more extensive wounds? Thewellman (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The criminal use of a gun itself can be important and notable, even if the the functional comparison information is not known; no one may actually know why a shooter chose a gun, the shooter may not be rational; just that the shooter used the gun in the shooting.
I didn't mean to imply identification of the firearm was of trivial importance in articles describing the individual or the event -- merely that identification of the individual or event was often of trivial importance to articles describing the firearm. But unknown bases for selecting the firearm would seem clearly within the realm of non-encyclopedic speculation. Thewellman (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
regarding "identification of the individual or event was often of trivial importance to articles describing the firearm" I think the opposite, identifying the notorious use of a firearm in an event, in a firearm article is important, because a firearm does not exist in pure isolation, the firearm is part of the world, and an encyclopedia reports facts about the world, like notorious use of a firearm in an event, within the firearm article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I understand your position, but it seems inconsistent with Wikipedia coverage of criminal use of other devices. To take motor vehicles as an example, the Oklahoma City bombing is unmentioned in the Ford F-700 redirect, the 2014 Isla Vista killings and automobile assaults are unmentioned in describing the BMW 328i Coupé, the police shootout following the 2015 San Bernardino attack is unmentioned in the Ford Expedition article, and the 2016 Nice attack killing 84 is unmentioned in the Renault Midlum article. Thewellman (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thewellman: Your first response mentions a number of "implied" factors in the choice of a weapon by a LE or military agency. However that's all they are - implied. We don't actually know, in almost every case, why a particular firearm is chosen. It could be because the sales rep wore a tight mini skirt, or took the chief out for a round of golf. It could have been the result of a political fight. The weapons could have been donated by the US military, and they might be sitting in a storage room unused. Unless there are sources we just don't know. Whatever the case, these unknown forces shouldn't be the basis for our editing decisions.
You say further that the historic use of a firearm is trivia. I don't know how you define "trivia", but these are the only mentions of most firearms that are ever made in mainstream publications. It is literally what makes them notable outside of a narrow group of hobbyists and professionals. I agree that the performance of a weapon in the real world, successful or unsuccessful, is part of the story of that weapon. That's why those historic uses should be included, not excluded. If a sniper's rifle makes the longest recorded kill, we mention that. If a target pistol is used to win a competition, we mention that. It's logical to discuss how a gun is used, not just how it's designed.
I have to question complaints about "trivia" when the GUNS project is happy with articles like .458 Lott or .375 Holland & Holland Magnum, which include every conceivable detail about their subjects. Or articles like Dan Wesson M1911 ACP pistol or Zastava PAP series, which have no assertions of notability or significance beyond their existence.
Regarding your second response, you list a number of items which aren't included. But you won't find any project guideline or advice page which specifically prohibits including those things. Their inclusion or exclusion is the result of normal editing process. Note that Ford Bronco includes mention of the OJ Simpson chase, that ANFO includes mention of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and that Pressure cooking mentions the Boston Marathon bombings. There's no guideline or advice page prohibiting those mentions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink doesn't say that articles about cookware may not include their use in terrorism. Nor should it. That would be beyond a Wikiproject's scope.
There are arguments to be made for or against the inclusion of gun use in any article. Why does this project need a special rule prohibiting the inclusion of reliably sourced information? Why aren't the policies and guidelines that are sufficient for the rest of Wikipedia good enough for this project? Felsic2 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
With respect to your first point, the difference between unknown and not available in secondary sources is an important distinction when describing military hardware. Secrecy often delays release of the performance specifications of military weapons testing, but United States DOD procurement procedures are fairly well documented. As you suggest, there are two reasons to classify information as secret. The obvious one is to deny potential enemies information about limitations of military hardware. The second is to avoid embarrassing high-ranking decision makers like those who may have negotiated with the long-legged sales rep in the tight mini-skirt. My security clearance wasn't high enough to offer an informed opinion on the latter; but, on the basis of professional experience teaching Navy and Marine Corps officers about the military weapons they would use and might encounter, I can assure you the lower individual cost of small arms encourages more rigorous testing programs than may be required for more expensive sophisticated weapons.
Earlier commenters have answered your later questions. It appears to be a consensus to avoid disproportionate volumes of information relating to criminal use. Every drive-by shooting requires both a motor vehicle and a firearm; but few editors are adding criminal use information to motor vehicle articles. Unless editors become as diligent about documenting motor vehicle deaths as they seem to be with firearms deaths, we won't know how Wikiproject automobiles might react as muscle car, pickup, and 4-wheel drive articles grew obituary sections of paragraphs about pedestrians killed by speeding, road rage, and drunk drivers. Thewellman (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Thewellman, "regarding inconsistent with Wikipedia coverage of criminal use of other devices." There is no prohibition that I know, you could add the notoriety information you wrote into the articles. WP is a work in progress, per WP: WP:SoFixIt. I added the Ford info into the Oklahoma city bombing. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in adding such information; because I regard it as trivial to the article subject, and I am troubled by the social consequences of glorifying illegal behavior. Thewellman (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thewellman: Regarding acquision by police departments and foreign militaries - these are different procedures then used by the US armed forces. In almost every case, we have no idea how they chose to acquire their weapons. Ditto for criminal users. So they're not that different. Which brings back the original question - why do we need a special rule that treats two kinds of users differently?
Regarding "consensus" - where is it? Where was this consensus formed and who participated?
Regarding "glorifying" subjects - I don't think anyone wants to glorify crimes, nor do I think that writing about them glorifies them. Does writing about wars glorify war? Does writing about bullets glorify them? We have hundreds and hundred of often very long articles on bullets. Do they deserve glory? Or is it more a matter of just writing about the world we live in from a neutral point of view, neither glorifying nor denigrating topics? The latter seems like the right approach - treat all topics the same wheter we like them or not.
Regarding "disproportionate volumes" - That's a judgment call. But we're only talking about adding links to notable crimes, the ones that have received enough attention to have WP articles written about them. The number of notable crimes committed with identifiable firearms is not huge. Again, compare that with the unlimited number of police departments and military units we list in firearms articles. If the Glock article has room for about 100 notable official users, why doesn't it have room for 100 civilian users?
Regarding "drive-by shootings", there are only about 10 that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Category:Drive-by shootings. However comparing guns to cars is unequal. A) Car articles don't list every police department that uses a particular vehicle. B) There's no special rule which says that we're not allowed to include criminal uses.
The issue here is not about the general principle of excluding or including criminal use in particular firearms articles. The issue is this Wikiproject's special rule prohibiting inclusion. So far, I haven't seen you justify the need to have this rule. Why can't the editors of articles be able to reach their own local consensus without being told that this rule has a special status preventing the addition of sourced information to Wikipedia articles? Felsic2 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Felsic2: Thank you for presenting your perspectives. From your use of the term bullet to describe cartridge articles, I can tell we have significantly different interests in this subject. I value your participation, but I find your arguments as unconvincing as you seem to find mine. I have said my piece, and it seems unproductive to continue this discussion if you don't want to hear it. I don't wish to imply my perspective is more important than yours, so I will leave it to the other project members to verify consensus still exists. Thewellman (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thewellman: Thanks for participating. I do know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, and between a magazine and a clip. However common usage equates the two, and common usage seems sufficient for general discussions. I do appeciate hearing your perspectives and you rasie valid issues, but they weren't focused on the specific topic of this thread - the Wikiproject's content rules. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


User:Felsic2- regarding "this Wikiproject's special rule prohibiting inclusion" what rule are you referring to? I don't find any written rule in WP:GUNS essays prohibiting inclusion of criminal use, only this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use which is a general principle allowing inclusion of notable criminal use.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


@CuriousMind01: This is a good question. It gets to the heart of the issue: what this section says and how is it used. It raises the issues of why it matters and how to solve the problem.

What it says: The section says that criminal uses are allowed. However it sets restrictions on their inclusion: increased notoriety, sales, or legal restrictions. It says that criminal uses may only be included under certain circumstances. Events which don't meet those criteria are excluded. Not only are there no such criteria elsewhere on Wikipedia, even this Wikiproject doesn't use it for other material. This section says in forceful language that some facts are prohibited, no matter how well-sourced. As written, this section is a prima facie violation of the neutral point of view policy.

How it's used: On talk pages this section is treated as dogma to shut down conversations, as if it were adopted Wikipedia policy. They treat it as a done deal, with this section binding on article editing. For example: "Please stop adding this to the article. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is quite clear and the recent school shootings do not meet the criteria for inclusion." Or "We don't litter Wikipedia gun articles with that kind of trivia. Read the project guidelines. Criminal use is not noteworthy unless it greatly increased the gun's notoriety. There may be lots of news articles that tell which type of gun the killer used, but that doesn't mean anything. Cite a source explicitly saying that this incident greatly increased the Beretta CX4's notoriety or sales, otherwise the information is not notable and for that reason will continue to be removed." (There are many examples like this.) It's used the same way in edit summaries: "rv per WP:GUNS#Criminal use", "Reverted per the Firearms Project Guidelines", etc. This section is used as an excuse to prohibit material, with the asserted status of a policy. It's not used to include info.

Why it matters: This Wikiproject section is skewing the editorial content of Wikipedia. Firearms articles include lengthy, unsourced specifications of interest to enthusiasts alone. They exclude material of interest to general readers, such as famous cases in which guns was used. This section's requirements, and its use, violate core content and editing policies. They say articles should be constructed neutrally and that projects do not own topics or set policy.

What's the solution? : There are no other "criminal use" sections in other Wikipedia projects. It's unnecessary and misused. The simplest solution would be deleting it. Another solution would be having a general "users" section that sets neutral guidelines for all material about users, good or bad, cops or criminals. Another would be to set content-neutral parameters for users, such as quality sources that mention the topic, and suggestins on how to treat various uses. Felsic2 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Judging by Felsic2 edit history, his creation of a how to insert gun crimes into gun articles essay, his endless questions and filibusters on various gun related talk and board pages, he obviously believes, assumes and is devoted to the idea individual criminal users of firearms choose to use specific firearms for a specific purpose (that is to kill as many people as possible). Therefore, a criminals choice to use a specific weapon/s is by itself notable and must be included in every single firearms article. The idea that criminals have no choices and simply use whatever weapons that fall into their hands undermines his augments...I Vote to oppose the addition of gun crimes to every gun article....Felsic2 history of making the same rejected augments over and over again on dozens and dozens of pages is by itself problematic and shows a pattern of behavior that should be closely examined.--RAF910 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I think comments in this section should be about the subject content onlyCuriousMind01 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC).
First, that is exactly the response that I would expect from someone who read Felsic2 how to POV pushers guide.
Second, when an editor wants to add a body count to every gun article on Wikipedia. It's fair to ask why?--RAF910 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
User:RAF910] 1. My comment is based on what I read in Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks "Comment on content, not on the contributor." 2. I do not see any body count discussion in this subject.CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The following is a recent edit to the Mini-14 page...

"Effects of criminal use

  • Byron David Smith used a Ruger Mini-14 to kill 2 teenage intruders at his home in Little Falls, Minnesota. The incident led to debate over what circumstances allow a homeowner to defend his or her home with lethal force. Smith was found guilty on two counts of first degree murder, and subsequently sentenced to life in prison.
  • Norway shooter Anders Behring Breivik shot dead 69 people at a summer camp on the island Utoya. July 22 2011."

This is what I'm talking about. Now you can call it whatever you want. However, by any other name, it is still a body count.--RAF910 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:RAF910, Thank you for the info, still body count is not a subject in this discussion. fyi, I do think notable criminal use should be in gun articles, as part of the mission of WP to report notable facts, and is allowed by the project guidelines and not be censured(much as I may dislike the facts). For example, I think the current notoriety section in the SIG MCX article is appropriate, neutral and non-inflammatory, and does not duplicate facts in the linked article. I do not know the history of the comments between editors above, but per WP I only comment on the topic in this section, within this section.

I think the 4 examples you listed are 4 instances of notorious criminal use of the gun, and are to be stated in the Mini-14 page but written something like the example below, with a link to each of the 4 articles. I don't think the criminal facts are to be duplicated and repeated within the gun article, but do think the notoriety be listed so as to be comprehensive in an encyclopedia, else I think the article is deliberately negligent and censured and unintentionally glorifies the gun. The gun is not an isolated item, it is used in the world, and good and bad uses are described in an encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia stating notable facts, good and bad, more than a catalog. Much as I dislike the bad facts, or info and photos I dislike in other articles, I accept their existence in an encyclopedia, in gun articles, and the other articles.

Draft Example: "Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents."CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • That'd be sensible. Felsic2 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would support a bulleted list of article links for incidents (both positive and negative) with notability sufficient for separate wikipedia articles. See Also might be a more neutral list title option than Notoriety or Popular culture. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This could be a response to the topic below, #Where should criminal use information be included?. Thanks for that input. My only objection to "See also" is that it doesn't indicate the actual connection. I agree that "Notoriety" and "popular culture" aren't good terms for this kind of material. Felsic2 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@RAF910: The topic of this thread is the content rule that excludes nearly all mentions of historic criminal uses of firearms while permitting the inclusion of every police and military unit that merely owns the same firearms. There's no doubt that there are differences of opinion, and that the circumstances will vary from article to article. But the content rule creates an unlevel playing field, where some content is allowed and other content is effectively censored. So, I've asked three questions: 1) why does this rule exist, 2) where is the consensus for it, and 3) what is its actual status in the policy hierarchy. Do you have answers to any of those? Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Is the Orlandon nightclub shooting relevant (to the firearm article for Sig-Sauer MCX brand and model of rifles/pistols)[edit]

See discussion here: Talk:SIG MCX#RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? --DHeyward (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Where should criminal use information be included?[edit]

While Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use prohibits most inclusions, it does permit a few (a controversial stand, in my opinion). However it does not offer any advice on how to include the information or where. That's the main job of advice pages. Should it be written as prose in the "history" section? Should it be mixed in with other users in a bullet-pointed list? Should it be in a standalone section, and if so what's the best section heading? Some options include: "Notoriety", "Civilian users", "Usage", "Criminal users", "Service use", and "Incidents". Felsic2 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I Vote to oppose the addition of gun crimes, criminal use or whatever you want to call it section to any gun article--RAF910 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
So your view is that no article about guns should ever mention their use in any crime whatsoever? In that case you do not support the current WP:GUNS#Criminal use section. That makes two of us. If there's no consensus for it then we can just delete it and work through these issues on an article-by-article basis.
You know very well what my position is. Now, you're just being argumentative. Maybe, you should just reword again and start another new discussion.--RAF910 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You've now made it clear that you oppose the current section. However you never addressed the topic of this thread. Maybe you'd like to start another one, but this one is on which section to place criminal uses. Felsic2 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're just being argumentative.--RAF910 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to get consensus on an MOS matter that's within this project's scope: section headers. If you don't have any input then don't argue about it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I have already voted. I'm sorry that you don't like my vote.--RAF910 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
We're talking at cross purposes. I agree with you that the current section WP:GUNS#Criminal use is unworkable, though for different reasons. However as long as it exists, and as long as there are any crimes mentioned in gun articles, it's worthwhile to agree on how those mentions will be handled. They're two different issues. Maybe you meant to reply in a different section. Felsic2 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
NO...I have voted and you are muddying the waters. You are twisting my vote into a pretzel. In order to make it sound as if I agree with you. When in fact, I oppose what you want to do.--RAF910 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
This section is not about voting. It's not about whether to include criminal uses in articles. It is a discussion on how to mention criminal uses when the community reaches a consensus to do so. Felsic2 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't own this page. You don't decide how the discussions evolve. And, you most certainly don't decides who wins and who loses. I have voted and I oppose your position.--RAF910 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position in this thread. I'm asking for input so we can come to an agreement. But if you want this thread to be about something different then I'll change the heading to reflect that and start a fresh discussion on the MOS issue. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think in a "Criminal Use" section. If the sources justify notoriety, then a "Notoriety Section". I think an encyclopedia should include the criminal use in gun articles. An encyclopedia is more than a gun catalog. I think the use should be linked to another article describing the crime, and not repeat the information.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest both criminal use and notoriety are inappropriately subjective. Neither is widely used in other parts of Wikipedia including articles about recreational drugs which seem to be a similar focus of police activity. Firearms have long been a tool of opposition to governments in power, and one might find differing opinions about whether criminal use would include incidents like the battles of Lexington and Concord, the Easter Rising, or the Deir Yassin massacre. Thewellman (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Criminal use is violating a law, like murder. Notoriety-fame for bad actions-could be subjective, but is determined by sources, like Bugsy Siegal ran Murder Inc but was never convicted of Murder. Criminal use and notoriety and their variations are used throughout Wikipedia. Firearms in opposition to a government in power is called Insurrection and Rebellion, or Revolt. A massacre is identified by sources. Another category is Vigilante. I think, use the specific term in an article as needed, and criminal use or notoriety would apply in most cases. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The question is: Whose law is being violated? Criminal gangs are often defined by persons in power to include organizations not in power, but that power may shift in time. Individual perception of similar firearms incidents involving Al-Qaeda, Black Liberation Army, Dutch resistance, French resistance, Haganah, Irgun, Irish Republican Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Lehi, Pesindo, Special Organisation, Symbionese Liberation Army, Viet Minh, or Viet Cong might be very different. Neutrality within the Wikipedia world community is best accomplished by avoidance of pejorative terms. Thewellman (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Thewellman, I think. "Criminality" is a somewhat POV perspective. What about police officers who are convicted of using a gun for manslaughter? What about the SS, deemed a criminal organization by the international tribunal? What about the Provisional IRA?
I think it would be better to have a neutral heading, like "history" or "famous uses". Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Thewellman, I don't consider the terms "Criminal Use" and Notoriety perjorative terms or conflict with Neutrality.

I think not stating important facts is censorship.

"Criminal Use" is defined in multiple laws for different subjects, guns, communications, personal Info. et al, see Google Criminal Use The crime could be specified in the article. Crimes may vary by society and organization, but crimes like "Murder" in the USA, for example, has been a crime for hundreds of years in many government jurisdictions irrelevant of who is in power.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
True. But what about articles like Accuracy International AWM, McMillan Tac-50, and Barrett M82, which describe the weapon's use in sniper shootings? What about accidental shootings? Famous owners? Instead of having separate sections for every kind of user, it makes more sense to me to have a catchall section that can include all of these users without separating legal and illegal users. Felsic2 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So many hairs being split.... in general, I also oppose the inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Categorically the inclusion in the firearm articles. Demonizing and anthropomorphizing the instrument is part of an ideological agenda. Did anyone notice the rifles used to stop the San Bernardino killers? It is enough to say they were shot death without listing every officer that fired their AR at the terrorists. The agenda to include criminal use here is to note every ill-intent of a person with a firearm while broadly ignoring productive uses which far outweigh illegal use and is undue weight. The make and model can be noted in the event itself (though the effect is to create an instant demand which is not particularly encyclopedic). Firearm articles that include use history should be limited to broad historical use (i.e. "the gun that won the west" or the use of the M1 Garand as U.S. battle rifle in WWII, or replacing the higher power M-14 with with a lighter round M-16 for vietnam). Terrorists and criminals use a number of items to commit the evil that lurks in their hurts but these agenda driven accounts seek only to demonize firearms with undue weight accounts of rare use in crime. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: @Niteshift36: The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms# Criminal use says that some criminal uses are notable enough for inclusion. That issues isn't the topic of this thread, but people can say whatever they want. However it appears that both of you oppose the section as written. If so, it would seem that there's no consensus for its continued inclusion. I don't see anyone here or above defending it, explaining why it exists or how it came to be. Does anyone want to come to its defense? Felsic2 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:DHeyward If you wish to add legal gun use to the San Bernardino or other articles, you can. I think important facts about both legal and criminal use belong in Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. I don't think info about legal or criminal use has to be repeated in a gun article, the info can be in the incident article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The section outlines a few instances in which criminal uses may be included. No one on this page has supported the section's reason for existing and a few have opposed it explicitly. So it seems there's no longer a consensus for it. Unless anyine has anything to say in its defense, I'll go ahead and either delete it, or cut it down to say that the decision should be made article by article. Felsic2 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anyone defending or supporting the current section, and the disagreements here over its provisions appear to show a lack of consensus. Going twice... Felsic2 (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Felsic2, you had multiple questions at the top of this section, but I don' think anyone answered the questions. I think you would be better posting 1 question at a time. I think if you delete the criminal uses section, if deletion is what you are proposing, that would not be the correct action based on the initial questions. I think the section could be modified, but try asking 1 question at a time, or post a draft revision for comments.CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
There was really just one question for this section: "Where should criminal use information be included?" Perhaps you're thinking of the previous section, in which I asked for anyone to justify the necessity for the section, to point to the consensus supporting it, and to describe how it is viewed by the project. Suffice it to say that none of the questions in either section have really been answered, though I'll credit Thewellman with making an effort to discuss this section's question, though he replied in the other section.
At this point I think there are two options: 1) delete the section 2) replace it with a simple suggestion, such as "Material on criminal and other uses should be decided on a case-by-case basis on the talk pages of each article." Any preference? Felsic2 (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ EFOIA. "nws2074.tmp" (PDF). Archived from the original on 2009-05-08. Retrieved 2009-03-11. 
  2. ^ Rathjen, Heidi; Charles Montpetit (1999). December 6: From the Montreal Massacre to Gun Control. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-6125-0. 

LR-308 vs DPMS vs Armalite AR10[edit]

Is there an article that covers these different patterns of 7.62x51 rifles? I've looked at the articles individually and none seem to really explain the difference or showcase the fact that they may be incompatible. What we have is the AR10 article which states "These rifle differ from both the current and original Armalite AR10 in a few minor dimensions that make some the Armalite AR10B not as modular as the rest of the AR based firearms." Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Fragmentation of articles on gun laws/gun politics[edit]

A user today moved Gun Politics in Switzerland to Gun Laws in Switzerland. Seems fine to me, what discussion of politics there is, is quite minimal. However, doing some poking around, There seems to be quite a lot of fragmentation in this area.

If you go to Category:Gun politics by country it's kind of a soup. Some articles are named Gun Politics, some are Gun Laws, and there's articles in the category, and articles as subcategories. As well, if you go to the main Gun politics page for the category - Overview of gun laws by nation There's a mishmash of different naming conventions among the main articles referenced, e.g.

  • Firearm legislation in South Africa
  • Firearm ownership law in China (which has considerable historical content, and little law content)
  • Gun legislation in Germany
  • Firearms policy in Ireland (which redirects to Firearms legislation in Ireland)
  • Firearms policy in the United Kingdom
  • Gun law in the United States
  • Gun laws in Australia

Along with the expected bunch of 'Gun politics in' articles.

I would personally lead towards renaming all such articles as "Firearm law in", but since some countries have additional sets of rules for non-firearms, such as pellet guns, I think the original "Gun law in" is more appropriate, because no distinction needs to be made within the article if there are specific laws for non-firearms covered as well. The whole 'Firearm/Firearms', 'Law/Laws' thing adds further complication, as pretty much all are valid.

I also think that where appropriate, a separate 'Gun politics in' naming convention is fine, as in a separate Gun Politics in the United States, where the matter is contentious.

Thoughts? I'm not a member of the project so I may be missing relevant issues. As well I don't want to step on anyone's feet. Anastrophe (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Anastrophe I think Law (a set of laws or a single law) and Laws (a set of laws) and Legislation (a set of laws) are used interchangeably, guns includes firearms, so I think "Gun Laws in.."is the more general term to use for the 1st seven items in your list above.
Gun politics (conflict and debate over gun laws) is a separate subject than Gun Laws, and the use of "Gun politics in..." is a correct term to use. CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This all arose out of a discussion/disagreement at Template talk:Gun politics by country with @Scolaire:, @Nick Cooper:. I think "Gun politics" is actually a better general title, since it covers the issues and history that leads to laws being passed. Articles only about laws could end up caught between dry repetitions of code and uninformed paraphrasings unless there are good secondary sources. But I'm fine with any solution which makes sense and doesn't delete information. Felsic2 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Cool. No need for further discussion here in that case. Anastrophe (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Anastrophe, I would prefer to keep the discussion here. A template talk page is not an ideal place to talk about article naming and content. I would have brought it here sooner, but I didn't know what was the relevant WikiProject.
The simple fact is that none the articles that were in the template are about gun politics except the United States one. Felsic2 moved most of those articles to "Gun laws in..." yesterday with the edit summary, "covers laws rather than politics", but the same applies to the articles that weren't moved. "Gun politics", in the sense that we understand it, i.e the debate between "gun rights" and "gun control", does not seem to exist anywhere else in the world; if it does, it is not covered in those articles. Note that there isn't even a Gun politics article: it redirects to Overview of gun laws by nation. Nick Cooper remarked in the discussion on the template talk page that "the problem overall is that many of the country pages seem to have taken the American original (created back in 2004, although the same editor also created the Australia and UK pages on the same date) as a model". And it shows. Firearms articles in several cases have an Americocentric cast. For instance, several articles talk of the right to "keep and bear arms" in the constitution – complete with wikilink – which is more a reflection of the American debate than a discussion of the constitutional basis of firearms legislation in the country concerned. Indeed, Gun politics in Honduras has an entire section just to say that their constitution doesn't have a provision for the right to keep and bear arms.
Even the phrase "gun laws" is a particularly American one. You don't hear it in Europe, and I'm pretty sure you don't hear it in the Antipodes. "Legislation" is the word used in Wikipedia article names, not "laws". "Firearms" (or less often "firearm") is used in article naming except for a type of gun (Rheinmetall 120 mm gun) or a phrase (run and gun). This project is called Wikiproject Firearms (plural), not WikiProject Guns. All of those articles should be renamed to "Firearms legislation in...", as should the Gun laws by country template and the Firearm laws category. Naming an article "Firearms legislation in..." need not prevent discussion of pellet guns. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
As regards categories, all of the articles that were renamed yesterday have been taken out of Category:Gun politics by country, but there are still subcats which are misnamed. Category:Gun politics in Australia, for instance, contains articles on legislation and on shootings, but only one article on a political party. I don't know what the best category name would be, but it should be renamed and taken out of the Gun politics cat.
I think we have an opportunity to sort out this tangle now, and I think we should take it. Scolaire (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

My only concern is that someone will come along and look at material in an article and say, "this isn't about laws" and delete it. If we can be sure that good material isn't going to be deleted because of renaming/rescoping then I have no objections. Felsic2 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any good reason to delete material in an article because the article title and category accurately describe its subject matter. I think you can rest assured on that point. Politics can certainly be discussed whenever it is relevant to the legislation. After all, nobody ever deleted material on legislation when the articles were called "Gun politics". Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Trigger finger[edit]

I just noticed Trigger finger (medical condition); would the medical use be the primary topic, or the firearms use? (we don't seem to have something listed for firearms at triggerfinger (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Trigger finger is a medical condition/subject/topic. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding "worst mass shooting" to various firearm articles[edit]

The SIG MCX page now has had added a "worst mass shooting" that is included under criminal use for the firearm, contrary to WP Firearm Criminal Use guidelines. An RFC on this has been posted on the talk page. You may comment there on whether or not this should be inserted into firearm articles. 16:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)