Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:35, 20 July 2016

Firearms Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criminal Use

Should we include this was the weapon used by Omar Mateen in the Pulse massacre in Orlando? Not an Armalite-15? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therubicon (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any mention of the Orlando massacre on the article for AR-15; in fact, on most firearm pages, including Glock (Mateen also used a Glock 17), you're not going to find mention of crimes committed with the guns in question. I think I know where you're going with this but it won't make a difference. Links to this page and to the Glock page are highly visible at the top of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting page and unless you're seriously willing to start adding respective crimes to every gun page on here, you're probably out of luck. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to add it to the article here because there isn't anything else about this gun that's more notable. There's no WP policy that prohibits including sourced information about the use of guns in crimes, and there are some policies, like WP:DUE, that seem to say we should include it. See my essay at WP:GUNCRIME. Felsic2 (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Going with WP:DUE, I didn't see anything in your essay about why the particular gun used in a crime is important enough that it gets mentioned while other criminal tools don't. Specifically, I was looking here. Usually, when we're talking about a shooter's gun, we're talking about one of the tools used to commit the crime. While it's almost certain that Mateen was on a suicide mission, a lot of shooters aren't and they make getaway plans (with maps, accomplices, and vehicles) accordingly. Calling a getaway vehicle stashed by the killer a "peripheral" tool would be inaccurate since it's there because the killer sees it as the difference between getting caught and escaping. (And since its presence could indicate malice aforethought, it can establish for a prosecutor the difference between not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty of first-degree murder. The method of escape matters.) He arguably committed at least two more crimes by calling 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS, but I don't want to know what would happen if I went to the page for the page for the phone it looks like he owned, a Samsung Galaxy S6, and inserted the information there.

I guess the question is, why is one tool used in the commission of a crime more pertinent than the others? Media mentions? Because how many media reports contained the phrases "SIG MCX" and/or "Glock 17" (or "AR-15" back when they thought that was the gun used) versus how many mentioned the 911 call he made to commit a crime? RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Going with WP:DUE, which says: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, I think we'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of this firearm wich has been given greater weight in reliable sources than its use in the Orlando shooting. The topic of this article isn't Samsung Galaxy S6, but if it were and if there were numerous stories about how the shooter had used that product in a highly newsworthy massacre, then that should be included there too. I haven't noticed any such artices, but that'd be a discussion for another page.

While Google isn't a perfect research tool, I suggest you search for "SIG MCX" or "SIG Sauer MCX" and see what the preponderance of sources talk about.

And turn the question around - if this firearm is not notable for being used in that shooting then what is it notable for? Merely existing? Having been reviewed in a blog? Felsic2 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"I think we'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of this firearm wich has been given greater weight in reliable sources than its use in the Orlando shooting." Here's a Google war I never though I'd do: "SIG MCX" versus "SIG MCX -Mateen." You are, of course, right in that almost every one of the first twenty or so hits for the first search are about the shooting. But with that second search, I'm trying to find mentions outside of the shooting. And seriously: There are tons of prominent mentions in reliable, professional media because every gun publication you can think of reviewed it. Plainly: yes. I believe several reviews in high-visibility media (as high-visibility as gun media gets, that is) is enough to establish notability for an article.

Although I'm sure something like this exists, I don't know what, exactly, is the bright line where this gun is notable and that gun isn't. If I seriously had to answer that, I'd just say high sales (which might not be publicly available information), appearances in movies/TV shows, or the aforementioned reviews. Because outside of illegal use, reviews are pretty much the only time any weapons will get mentioned in the news. So I'll turn the question back around: isn't there anything else we can use to get a firearm's article past the notability requirement besides a horrific crime related to that gun? That's obviously why this article exists, but I think that's because looking around, I don't see many gun enthusiasts on here. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This gun is notable because it was developed, produced and sold by a major manufacturer for sporting, law enforcement and military uses. It's lawful use in stopping crime dwarfs its criminal use by an astronomical amount. This is true for Glock and AR-15s as well. --DHeyward (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Although it is worth pointing out that this article didn't get created until the Orlando shooting and probably still wouldn't exist had Mateen used an AR-15. Let's say some obscure boutique gunmaker had made only three copies of a model of gun and one of those three was used to perpetrate a massacre. Would that gun get an article? I honestly think so even though such a gun wouldn't meet any of the standards you laid out. Is there any policy or guideline on this? We haven't established a bright line: this is what makes a gun notable and that isn't enough. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This gun is notable because it was developed, produced and sold by a major manufacturer for sporting, law enforcement and military uses.

There's nothing like that in any of the "notability" guidelines I can find. Maybe I missed one. The usual standard for notability is something like:

• Misplaced Pages articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Misplaced Pages. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

According to that, notability is determined by the depth and range of sources, and from having gained attention by the "world at large". How much attention had the world at large taken of the SIG MCX before this shooting? The "world at large", beyond hobbyist magazines and some government agencies, took no notice of it. It is not notable for weighing 2.61 kg, or for using .62×39mm ammunition.

It's lawful use in stopping crime dwarfs its criminal use by an astronomical amount. This is true for Glock and AR-15s as well.

Then how come we have't heard about any of these uses to stop crime? If it's more famous for being carried by law enforcement and soldiers then that part should get more attention. It isn't a zero-sum game. We can include both. Why can't the article be a few sentences or paragraphs longer? Felsic2 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Herr Gruber (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but what does determine the content? The NPOV policy is one of the main policies, and it says that everything neds to be included in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. The sources which mention the criminal use are more prominent than those which list the variants sold, for example.

I put it back because the editor who deleted it used faulty logic and an incorrect policy citation. He wrote:

WP:UNDUE - it has been used thousand of times. Should we list each soldier that has used one successfully in battle?

WP:UNDUE doesn't say that we censor information about notable events just because there are thousands of non-notable events. A close comparison would be excluding a list of notable people who come from a city just because millions of non-notable people come from it as well.

Also, the editor never gave any sources for these thousands of uses. So no one here has presented any good reason based on actual policy to delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Have removed trivia about this rifle being used in Orlando. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use for guideline. No laws have changed, and no legislative action has occurred. If it does later, then this can be reconsidered. But, for now, despite it being a sad misuse of a firearm, the fact it was used in Orlando is but trivia. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: A massacre of 49 people, with another 50 or so wounded, is not "trivia". How could you call that trivial compared to dry statistics like the weight and dimensions of these rifles?

The style suggestions of Wikiproject Firearms are not a guideline and have no more authority than an essay. "This section is an essay on style." It is merely advice - it is not binding on any article. Please stop citing that advice page as if it was a guideline. There is no Misplaced Pages rule that laws have to be changed for crimes to be mentioned. See WP:GUNCRIME#WP:GUN. Felsic2 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The project guidelines reflect a consensus of multiple editors. Your essay reflects a consensus of you, and is you coming up with "magic bullet" arguments which are supposed to somehow let you cheat around the rules re:consensus. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely your POV that mainstream journalistic political activism constitute a reliable source. Said journalists are actually so unreliable they were declaring the shooter's weapon to be an AR15 before they even knew if that was actually the case and tying this to the threat of the Scary Black Rifle. Moreover, you're trying to bulldoze through an existing guideline that reflects consensus over what firearm articles should contain. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Herr Gruber: It's not my POV that mainstream journalists writing for mainstream publications are reliable sources. It's the way that Misplaced Pages works. Do you believe that "The Truth About Guns", a blog, is less politically active than Newsweek? It's the only independent source in this article. "American Rifleman" is politically active. Should we delete it from all articles because of its pro-gun bias? That'd be crazy. Unless they're actually fringe sources, having a political bias doesn't invalidate a source. And please keep the rhetoric down. No one has talked about "Scary Black Rifles" except you. Felsic2 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not the way Misplaced Pages works. Sources that are blatantly advancing a particular political position are not suitable as anything but sources about that political position (ie, as proof the position exists and of what that position consists of), we do not make the jump to asserting that the position itself is true simply because they say it is. As the policy on sources notes, a source is not on-off "reliable" or "unreliable," it is determined by context. A source which is primarily an editorial advocating a political position is not as good for basic information about a thing as a source that is not. That's that "neutrality" policy you keep bringing up, which is about not asserting a political position in either the article itself or the choice of sources used by it.

A review is not a political position, and so is not treated the same way: there is nothing political about discussion of how a firearm works or if it is a good one in technical terms. While we can surmise that Thetruthaboutguns is probably pro-2A, there is nothing about the linked page that actually advances or advocates such a position, as opposed to the newsweek article which contains controversial language and dubious terminology in the title (SIG "cashed in," claiming a civilian carbine is an "assault rifle" and that it "has few practical applications other than killing humans at scale"), nevermind the body of the text. You assume omitting information about criminal use in expert publications about firearms is some dastardly political exercise (as opposed to them simply regarding it as irrelevant), but you're blind to this requiring that either every publication on guns ever written is American (false) or alternatively every gun expert and military historian in the world has a vested interest in US gun politics (patently absurd).

The crux of this, though, is your contention that a shooting has something to do with the firearm used in it, which would require some expert (ie not an editorial piece by someone who works for International Business Times, since that is not a publication noted for firearms expertise) to assert that were the case; you'd need to prove to us that this deserved to be mentioned and establish a consensus, not just prove it to yourself and try to steamroll consensus with links to your special page of reasons why consensus doesn't apply to you. You've so far presented things that say it was used that way, but no justification for putting that information in this article, just a lot of Wikilawyering. Your constant POV-pushing might be a little more convincing if you started with weapons legendary for use in crimes (Thompson SMG) or used in a list of massacres, terrorist acts and war crimes as numerous as stars in the sky (AK series), but you're blatantly pushing for the "black rifles are evil crime guns" angle. I mean hell, you didn't even try to list the AR-derived M16s used in the My Lai Massacre to pretend your edits aren't exclusively about current US gun politics. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the responses here have cited any actual WP policies or guidelines to justify the removal of this well-cited, relevant material. That makes it seem like the only reason for the deletion is "I don't like it", and that ain't a valid reason.Felsic2 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The rule on consensus would be a good start, followed by UNDUE. No authoritative source about firearms lists crimes committed with them, and no authoritative source regards crimes committed with weapons as being fundamental to the weapons themselves. This means a list of crimes is about as relevant as a list of the maiden names of the mothers of the designers. If every reliable firearms-related source listed crimes committed with weapons, so would we. But none of them do.

That's the thing: the things an article about a piece of technology lists or does not list are derived from how authoritative sources about that piece of technology describe them. For example, aircraft articles usually have a 3-plan view of the aircraft because almost all aviation books include one with the stats of the aircraft: this is an accepted mode of presentation. Similarly, I can crack open my Jane's Guns Recognition Guide and it will include the dimensions of the firearm, production years, markings and brief information about what it does (and how to unload it), but will not include a 3-plan (hence why gun articles don't have those) or place any particular score in individual use. The sole exception is weapons like the Thompson submachine gun where entire books on them go into detail about their history, which in the case of the Thompson obviously includes use by gangsters. Even so, that article only specifically mentions the most famous gangster use (by Al Capone) and devotes all of one sentence to it, not even mentioning, say, George "Machine Gun" Kelly despite that using a Thompson was how he got his nickname.

In order to include the section you want, you would have to demonstrate sources about firearms, by experts on firearms, regard criminal use as being as inseparable from the weapon as how long it is or what round it fires. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus does no override site-wide policies.

There is no policy that says we structure articles the same way that popular books are structured.

There is no policy that says all articles on types of weapons should contain the same types of information to the exclusion of other information.

There is a policy, WP:DUE, that says we include material based on it prominence in mainstream publications.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

The use of this weapon in the Orlando shooting has been discussed in reliable sources. More sources, and more prominent sources, than discuss its length or weight.

Therefore, this article should, and must in order to comply with WP policy, contain a mention of the Orlando shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is fine to mention in the various terrorism articles what items were used by the criminals. However, in articles on firearms, in keeping with longstanding practice on Misplaced Pages, we do not include such trivia. It is not trivia that people die, of course. The various articles on terrorism incidents are entirely appropriate, and it is entirely appropriate to cite in these various articles what items were used to commit these crimes. Trucks, cars, pressure cookers, firearms, etc., are all commonly used. Judging from the death tolls, firearms are not even in the most dangerous categories. Large trucks and pressure cookers seem to have that dubious "honor". However, we do not mention in particular truck or car models how many have been mowed down by particular vehicle or cooking item models. Likewise, in articles on pressure cookers, we do not mention how many have been killed with particular Presto or whatever model pressure cookers, either. It is the same for firearms. On the other hand, if legislative action is taken against particular trucks, pressure cookers, or firearms as a result of action by legislators stemming from particular crimes, then it is entirely appropriate to mention in specific item articles that such legislative action stemming from particular crimes have resulted. Hence, there is no logical reason to mention in the firearm article what crimes have been committed with it, unless legislative action results. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding of policy here that articles about firearms do not include notable criminal uses, notable defensive gun uses, or movie/TV/video game uses unless that particular use has become well-known enough to be mentioned in reliable sources *about the firearm itself*. One example would be the Smith & Wesson Model 29, made famous in Dirty Harry. A counter-example would be the fact that the SVT-40's article does not mention it being used in particular video games, even though those video games themselves are notable (and often have their own Misplaced Pages pages). So those video game pages may link to the SVT-40's page, but not the other way around. I would disagree with Herr Gruber that the source has to be "by experts on firearms" or that the criminal (or other) use must be "as being as inseparable from the weapon as how long it is or what round it fires"; I think that's setting the bar too high. If, for example, a mainstream publishing house published a book by a prominent investigative journalist called "The SIG Sauer MCX: Everything You Ever Needed to Know about This Gun" and it included a whole chapter on how the SIG Sauer MCX had been used in the Orlando shooting, I would say that we should probably include criminal use, with due considerations to weight, bias, NPOV, etc. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Start-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles