Just to be clear, we all agree a Bushmaster XM15 rifle was used in the Sandy Hook shootings. It says in this article that XM15 is an M4 type carbine. Miguel is claiming that it's original research to conclude an M4 type carbine was used? I'm no gun expert, so I would appreciate clarification. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, we all agree a Bushmaster XM15 rifle was used in the Sandy Hook shootings. It says in this article that XM15 is an M4 type carbine. Miguel is claiming that it's original research to conclude an M4 type carbine was used? I'm no gun expert, so I would appreciate clarification. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
: I see; only some XM15-E2S's are M4 type carbines.. I misunderstood. Yes, this content is more appropriate for the Bushmaster article. Though I'd have to wonder why there isn't an article on the larger class of Bushmaster XM-15 rifles? [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This is another commercial AR-15 clone, why does it deserve it's own entry? Candidate for deletion, don't feel that way, prove me wrong. Koalorka (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepor perhaps merge with either the Bushmaster or AR15 articles. Deleting the hard work of others never sits right with me (unless its a totally useless article, of course, and this one is not).--Mike Searson (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Damn I put so much hard work into this article... I thought it was a notable clone because it is the best selling AR-15 around, and is used by a lot of organisations. Also there are quite a lot of clone articles, such as the many M1911 articles. Hayden120 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notable because it's the most well-known AR-15. Just because it's a clone doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve to have mention in WP. Celarnor (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, apart from being attached to it for personal contributions made I haven't heard of any valid reason for keeping it. Surfing through firearms manufacturer websites and creating articles based on ads and brochures is not how we maintain an encyclopedia. Some of you forget that. If not deleted this article should be merged into the Bushmaster Firearms International page. There are a gazillion companies that make the AR-15 and its many variants. I'll put up the merge tags. Koalorka (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable on its own. Different than the actual AR-15, so should not be merged twith the AR15 article. A short paragraph mention in the Bushmaster Firearms International article with the main article tag for the paragraph pointing back here is probably the best way to work this. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Bushmaster AR-15 is certainly notable, and so should have its own article. I believe this is true of many other guns as well. We want to avoid having frivolous articles, and guns that are minor variations should just get sections of a main article, but neither of these apply to the Bushmaster. — Mudwater00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what would be your collective opinion on say the Bushmaster Camo Varminter:
Going with the logic presented, or lack thereof it would seem these guns also deserve their own entries. What about the rest of the commercial AR-15 makers? They also have models that are "different" from the AR-15. Rock River Arms, Olympic Arms, Anvil Arms, Sabre Defence, Lewis Machine & Tool, Stag Arms, ArmaLite, Bravo Company, DPMS. They all have a range of AR-15 variants in different configurations. Are we now going to be describing every one of those with a separate page. Of course not! WP:Firearms tells us otherwise. What specific information does this article give (other than marketing hype) that is not already mentioned with the AR-15?
And frankly I don't see any "hard work" put into this either. This article is un-encyclopedic and reduces our projects credibility and serious contributions other have made. I will bring this up on the WP talk page. Those of you in favour of keeping this are seriously out to lunch IMO. Koalorka (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best, or if not, the best selling AR-15 currently on the market. Others such as the Camo Varminter do not sell anywhere near the same numbers as this. And why do you say this, "This article is un-encyclopedic and reduces our projects credibility and serious contributions other have made."? What is there in the article that reduces our project's credibility or affects serious contributions others have made? Some of the hard work that done was to add citations to many of the facts, something you don't seem to often do in articles you have heavily edited. The article satisfies the criteria for B-Class of both project tags, so what is there 'un-encyclopedic' about the page? Hayden120 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would go further and say that many guns that are less well known would still be legitimate subjects for Wikipedia articles, as long as they are not minor variants of other guns. They would have to meet the criteria for notability, but would do so if they've been written up in a couple of gun magazines -- see Wikipedia:Notability. I really think that such articles do not reduce the credibility of WikiProject Firearms and do not detract from other firearms articles. They also are appropriate to the very comprehensive nature of Wikipedia itself. Furthermore, new articles would not need to be anywhere near as good as this one is. It's well within the philosophy of Wikipedia for articles to be created as stub or start class and then gradually improved over time. — Mudwater12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
Please stop DELETING relevant information from this article. Use of this weapon in two of the most notorious mass murders of the 21st century certainly meets WP:GUNS#Criminal use criteria: multiple forms of legislation are being considered and debated nationally as a result of this use, and there can be no doubt that the weapon's "notoriety greatly increased." Due weight is thus accorded. Wikipedia community and readers are harmed by having this information off the page during protection. Someone with such ability should re-protect page after reinserting this information. 91.66.192.70 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits violate the guidelines laid out at WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:GUNS, and they will continue to be reverted for that reason. This issue is definitely not worth noting in the article, much less in the lede of the article. It does not meet the notability criteria that has been pointed out to you. The fact that gun control legislation is "being considered" at the moment is irrelevant and the same could be said following any shooting; your statement that "the weapon's notoriety greatly increased" is also purely original research at this point and it's far too early to make such a claim. Enough with the coatracking; this is an encyclopedic article. ROG5728 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lobot, I understand your thinking in so far that WP:GUNS#Criminal use asks for a "legislation being passed" for a gun to be mentioned in such cases. And you probably feel that this means US legislation. Alas, WP-en is read, and edited, in several dozen countries, and I'd like to know only one of them that does not prohibit the trade, ownership and use of a military assault rifle except for military personel (on duty). The US are really very special in this regard. There may be a majority of US citizens using WP-en, but I don't read the idea of WP as having to hide information and protect one group from the view of the rest of the world. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GUNS is a WikiProject. Quoting directly from the WikiProject page: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles (emphasis added). So while WP:GUNS may provide helpful suggestions for editing this article, it is by no means absolute nor is it WikiPedia policy.72.94.162.159 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:GUNS##Criminal use suggests to me that the recent shooting should be included in the article. It explicitly says that a criminal incident is notable enough to be included "if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine)". I think this incident qualifies. Just take a look at the currently exploding page views of this page. So regardless of whether or not there's legislation, the Columbine president suggests it should be included. That is, of course, assuming this was the gun that was used. Mlm42 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the same it would be wise to play the waiting game and see how this shapes up. Its true the gun was used, but unless the legislation specifically mentions the guns in question its doubtful that it would meet a basic notability requirement. A day or two of on the fence back and forth would do both sides well to see how the debate will shape up since at the moment there is no garuntee that the shooting will result in something like the brady bill being passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.217.194 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; when (if) there is "huge impact" on the gun-control debate and legislation stems from this and mentions this particular rifle (this rifle is, by definition, not an 'assault weapon under the 1994 AWB, the renewal of which being the only actual change in law being discussed) then we can discuss inclusion. Until then, mention of the shooting is contraindicated by both WP:GUNS#Criminal use and WP:CRYSTAL. This happens on every single article about firearms used in a crime that makes the news in the US, the overwhelming majority of these mentions do not stick and WP:GUNS#Criminal use has been a stable guideline for a long time. Give it some time; once the new Congressional session starts, we'll see if legislation is promulgated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just c&p the guideline as it exists now: "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). As per WP:UNDUE, editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"." The mass murder at Sandy Hook appears to have met or exceeded the requirement of infamy. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The incident "appears" to have met the requirement of infamy? That isn't good enough. Every time there is any kind of mass shooting, the weapon that was used receives a blurb of media attention for a short time. Thing is, the Intratec is still associated with the Columbine shooting, but it remains to be seen if there will be any real connection between the Bushmaster/AR-15 and this incident when the dust has settled. I think it's safe to say there won't be; but it's far too early to say. ROG5728 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's speculation to say anything one way or the other at this point. There may be quite a lot of coverage at the moment but that is always the case following a mass shooting. Difference is, the Intratec is still associated with the Columbine shooting, but it remains to be seen if there will be any real connection between the Bushmaster/AR-15 and this incident when the dust has settled. ROG5728 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So as a project like WP:GUNS is _not_ any kind of "rule-making organisation" (see above), but just a group of editors interested in the subject, they are free to document how they want to handle the things, but that has no power whatsoever on the rest of the editors. Alas, the connection to the shooting can and must be mentioned in the Bushmaster article. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this common sense conclusion. So, how can we get the information included? Being new to Wikipedia, I do not know the details of how to do so, but I formally appeal now for a review of this matter by impartial authorities. Can a vote of moderators or something be initiated, and if so how? Time is marching on, with this article "protected" while lacking crucial encyclopedic information while large numbers of internet users are visiting this site to obtain comprehensive and uncensored information on a topic of historic and public policy and cultural significance. We can no longer wait. 91.66.192.70 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a news service, so time should not be the big problem. But I agree that the protection in the current state is wrong. About the review by some kind of impartial authority - consider that WP is not a democracy, more like China in a part of its history when the Mandarins were given absolute power by the emperor. So if you seek wise decisions by higher power I advise you find a WP-admin who understands your point. Sorry... --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the WP:GUNS guidelines were formed by project consensus. The addition you're begging for certainly does not have consensus of any sort. Let me also point out that it would violate the guidelines at WP:OR and WP:NPOV, because it constitutes biased speculation on the long term notability/relevance of this connection. If you want to find information on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, go to that article. This is an article on the Bushmaster rifle and its technical characteristics. Let's keep that in mind. This is Wikipedia, not CNN. ROG5728 (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's only project consensus. See, for example, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In fact, I think not including the incident is violating WP:NPOV, which overrules anything WP:GUNS says. A neutral article about this type of gun should mention this highly notable shooting. I understand there are concerns that it's too early to tell.. but what's the downside of adding it? Almost everybody (possibly 100%) who is coming to this article right now is coming because of the discussions surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting. WP:GUNS does not own this article, and therefore cannot ignore WP:NPOV.
WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There have been several reliable sources now exclusively talking about the gun in relation to the incident. It's time to add it. Mlm42 (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should by no means only be about the "technical characteristics" of a topic, but should also include important historical, cultural, political and other aspects. Let's get some helpful input to resolve this.91.66.192.70 (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The continuing refusal of some editors to allow properly referenced information that is of interest to readers of the page to be added is now well into the absurd and appears to be little more than censorship at this point. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is clearly satisfied in this case (via "notoriety greatly increased"), which as has been pointed out has already stimulated a huge increase in the number of views of this page, and of sales of the gun in question. ROG5728, I can see from your User-Page that you are a keen gun enthusiast, and I believe that your enthusiasm has clouded your judgement on this issue. Please allow those unconnected with either the pro- or anti-gun lobbies to make a properly NPOV inclusion of reference to the Sandy Hook incident. An NPOV inclusion is one which neither ignores that the gun was used, nor attempts to implicate that the gun or its availability was the cause of the incident of killings involved. Thank you. Fig (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So then we can as well wait for consensus in the US congress, I'd rather see a man on mars before that. What we can seek is a compromise. How about "media attention" as a separate chapter? That implies a certain distance from that media's working style. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, recent sales of the gun don't necessarily have anything to do with notoriety; AR-15 owners are buying more AR-15s. Looking at the number of page views to determine whether "notoriety greatly increased" is also WP:OR. Please provide a source that says something of the sort (I don't doubt such a source exists). The problem is not the wording of your addition, the problem is that talking about criminal use in an article that says nothing about lawful use is obviously unbalanced. For example, you'll notice the article doesn't point out that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America and it's almost never used in homicides. The Bushmaster rifle is used for lawful purposes by millions of Americans, but here we are talking about including criminal use in one incident. This kind of nonsense is exactly why the WP:GUNS guidelines were created. Personally, I think it would be much better to avoid the inevitable gun control debate altogether in this article and save it for something like the Assault Weapons Ban article. But if we're going to talk about a criminal use in the article, it's only fair to talk about lawful use as well. After all, that's primarily what the rifle is used for, as I've already pointed out. Anyway, the problem is not just that the information you're wanting to include advances an agenda; the problem is that it really does nothing aside from advancing an agenda. Unless this incident has some kind of long term impact on the AR-15, it's basically trivia. People associate the Intratec with the Columbine shooting, as WP:GUNS points out, but it remains to be seen if there will be that kind of strong link between Connecticut and the AR-15. ROG5728 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing noticeably absent from the above conversation so far has been notability. Like it or not, both the pro- and anti-inclusion camps need to recognize that right at this moment our hands are tied not be WP:GUNS but by notability requirements as outlined on Wikipedia. Our notability requirements, in particular for news and crime, do not as of yet permit us to add information on this event as it relates to the shooting here in the article. The biggest single reason boils down to "one event": the guns notability at the moment is inherently limited to one event, and without that event there would be no reason to mention the weapon at all, it would merely be another assault weapon sold in the US. I know that both side do not want to hear this, but right now your best course of action is to adopt a wait-and-see posture. To rush to add this information to the article is irresponsible, and besides the information you are so desperate to add to the article here is already present on the shooting page. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notability policy is not restricting us from doing anything. That policy is about when it's appropriate to create an article on it's own.. and the shooting incident is obviously notable enough for that (hence Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting). WP:N says nothing about what is notable enough for inclusion in articles that already exist; that's what the policy WP:NPOV is about, which I've quoted above (and I've argued NPOV supports the inclusion of the shooting in this article, due to the significant coverage in the media). Mlm42 (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ROG5728, I'd be careful of throwing around accusations of advancing an agenda, because preventing relevant information from entering an article could also be seen as advancing an agenda. That's why we have WP:NPOV.. it explains how to be neutral. At this stage, a neutral sentence or two, stating that this was the gun involved in the Sandy Hook shootings, is a neutral statement, given due weight, and thus should be included. Mlm42 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Mlm42 is absolutely correct - quite apart from the silliness of suggesting the use of this gun at Sandy Hook is not notable, notability refers to articles themselves, not individual sentences in those articles. The fact that something has only happened once doesnt make it not-notable - the notability of something is determined by its impact. In any case, this is not the first time this gun has been used in a massacre - an earlier variant, a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S was used in the Beltway sniper attacks, as you would know if L0b0t hadnt deleted the references earlier, so now that non-sequitur has been put to rest we can move on. I'm glad that an editor has put up a Neutrality dispute notice on this article, because there is obviously a real problem here. Fig (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mlm42, it's not relevant information, nor would it be neutral for us to add text about one isolated incident of criminal use while neglecting to say anything about how the rifle is primarily used by millions of Americans for lawful purposes. The article in its current state does not advance any agenda one way or another; it's perfectly neutral. It does not need to be expanded unless something major actually comes of this incident (like federal gun control legislation being passed). But it remains to be seen if that will happen. ROG5728 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we've made progress. We will put in a reference to both the use at Sandy Hook and the fact that "the rifle is primarily used by many (unlikely to be millions, as the M4 is just a small portion of the estimated 3,000,000 assault rifles in the US) Americans for lawful purposes." Thank you for your compromise ROG5728 - I am happy with that. The reader is properly informed of two useful bits of information that aren't currently in the article, which means that everyone is enlightened and Wikipedia does its job. Does someone want to inser the appropriate text? Fig (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Straw poll the inclusion first, just to be safe. Adding it without some sort of measuring device is liable to result in the info being yanked again. That's what I would do, anyway. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I suggest something along the lines of "There are an estimated x00,000 <with reference> Bushmaster M4 in circulation in the USA used by civilians for lawful purposes. However, this gun was also used in the Sandy Hook school massacre. <with references>"Fig (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Lawful purposes" makes no sense to mention because anything not explicitely forbidden is allowed. The reason to mention the Sandy Hook shooting in this article is simply because a huge number of other media draw this connection and the gun has become a markstone for a debate that goes well beyond the event (the valuation of which is not very much debated). --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of coming to an agreement (and in line with the Bold, Revert, Discuss editing cycle), I've added what I think is a reasonable sentence to the article, with reasonable references.. lots of room for improvement. I didn't know what to say about how they are primarily used by civilians; as Fig suggests, quantifying their popularity would be a good way to say this, but I don't know the sources for such information. Mlm42 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would make sense anyway, not so much in order to balance the current discussion but as part of the encyclopedic information about this subject. Sources anybody? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early to forecast what effect, if any, this single point event will have on changing laws. Have removed the statement, as it is too early to put this in the article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, IMHO this citation and the added data about civilian use is a valuable addition to the article, and also puts the Sandy Hook event in a perspective. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have made another attempt to put in a balanced set of comments, including ROG5728's link on use, and another link I found on the numbers of general AR-15s in civilian hands in the USA. I really hope this finds general agreement, so we can remove the NPOV dispute tag from this page and all get on with something else more fun (like getting drunk as we should be on the Friday before Christmas...) Fig (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not balanced, and not relevant. The reason is that AR-15 rifles are entirely a much bigger class than Bushmaster xm15-e2s rifles. The new addition is simply trivia. Likewise for the mention of the use of the Bushmaster M4 by Adam Lanza. I could make much the same case for including a newer section in the article that Ford's are the most common type of crossover vehicle sold in America, followed by a statement that Adam Lanza drove a Ford Explorer to the location of the school shooting (here is even a cite: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Connecticut+massacre+revives+memories+1998+Oregon+shooting/7705376/story.html ). But, we wouldn't think of including any mention of those bad Ford Explorers in the article. But, had Adam not stolen his mom's Ford Explorer, there would have been no mass murder, either. Hence, both should be mentioned, by your logic. Yet, neither should be included in the article. The new AR-15 statement and criminal use statement paragraph do not belong in the article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is frankly ridiculous. The fact that Ford's are the most common type of crossover vehicle sold in America is of course notable and worth putting in such an article. The car that Lanza drove to the scene is incidental. Unless of course he had killed 27 people by running them over with it. Thanks to ROG5728 for his helpful edits and agreeing to the consensus. Evidently we cant please everyone Miguel, but I think you'll have to accept that there is now consensus here. Fig (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miguel, regarding your comparison to cars, consider the article Ford Bronco, which mentions in the lead O.J. Simpson's car chase. The reason we are talking about adding the shooting incident to the article about the gun (rather than the article about the Ford Explorer) is due to the amount of media coverage that has focused specifically on the gun; Wikipedia is supposed reflect what reliable sources say, and that's what we're trying to do here. Mlm42 (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While reading the information on this page I noticed some of it was incorrect and would like it to be fixed to remain up to date and factual. If you read under the subtopic Civilian User's this article mentions a 2012 school shooting. This information was actually botched as it was later reported that the gun had been found in the trunk of the car he was driving and was not actually ever used during this event.
This weapon was used to kill all the child victims at Sandy Hook per the medical examiner. Please see the discussion above, plus the extensive references on the page. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GUNS#Criminal use is a WikiProject. Quoting directly from the WikiProject page: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles (emphasis added). Although WP:GUNS may provide helpful suggestions for editing this article, it is by no means absolute nor is it WikiPedia policy. The notorious use of the Bushmaster product for this mass murder overrides such WikiProjects. --Zeamays (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
use in Beltway Sniper attacks
Having agreed to the following language, "However, in December 2012, a .223 Bushmaster rifle was used by Adam Lanza to kill 27 in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting", I think there should be an additional mention of this weapon's use in the Beltway Sniper Attacks. Such language is already in the Bushmaster Firearms International page, in the following form: "In 2004, Bushmaster Firearms agreed to contribute $500,000 to a $2.5 million settlement along with co-defendant Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, paid to some victims and families of victims of the 2002 Beltway snipers. A Bushmaster-manufactured .223 caliber rifle was used in the attacks. The company cited mounting legal fees as the reason for settling." It cites http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/9/20040909-095944-5026r/?page=1— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.56.68 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't operate by precedent. The fact that some other article has something in it doesn't mean this one should too. The information you quoted belongs on the Bushmaster manufacturer article. This is what always happens when we open the door to these kinds of additions... the article invariably gets crammed with more and more criminal use comments that serve no real purpose. ROG5728 (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, ROG, what's your evidence for your statement, "the article invariably..." or is that just your opinion? Give us some published statistics if you want to make a claim like that. --Zeamays (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article already contains enough pointless criminal use references. There's not a chance we're going to going to go a step further with this and add even more trivia. If you keep pushing the issue, we can just go ahead and remove the other criminal use comments completely and restore the article to its previous state. You're already trying to use the previous addition as an excuse to add more unnecessary content, and it's not going to happen. ROG5728 (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to go against consensus doesn't exactly advance your argument. Remember, you don't own the article; neither does WP:GUNS. After a quick internet search, it seems to me that quite a lot of attention has been given to the fact that the specific type of rifle was used in the Beltway attacks.. so if this isn't going to be included, a convincing argument needs to be made. If you think the criminal incidents are being given undue weight, then counter with non-criminal content about the gun. Mlm42 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are lots of editors here that are against including any of the criminal use material, and they've continued to remove it. I personally agreed to leave the matter alone earlier, but if you keep pushing the issue, we can just go ahead and remove the other criminal use comments completely and restore the article to its previous state. Contrary to what you might like to believe, consensus can change and it's obvious you do not have consensus to clutter the article with more and more pointless trivia comments. ROG5728 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of the Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine in the cites mentioned. A .223 Bushmaster rifle is what is mentioned. Also, there is no need for unrelated AR-15 data being here, where it is trivia at best. Have removed the Original Research and WP:SYNTH that a .223 Bushmaster rifle is a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine. Find a reference that states it was a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine, and that is a different cite and a different case. But, the present cites don't support the inclusion of what is, at best, unrelated trivia, in this particular article. Have removed this data, which doesn't belong here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a mention that the rifle used by Adam Lanza was only similar to a Bushmaster M4 here. It is clearly OR to state he used a M4 Type Carbine with no cites backing up this claim. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell, Adam Lanza used an XM15-E2S rifle, similar to the photograph here. Bushmaster XM15 E2S A2 20in A mention in the Bushmaster Firearms International article is where this mention should go, if anywhere. But, it is OR and WP:SYNTH to put this information on an entirely different rifle. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Escopeta's information is referenced and appears correct. I will withdraw my objection unless documentation is produced to show this is the correct murder weapon in these crimes. I go by the facts, not personal opinion. --Zeamays (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, we all agree a Bushmaster XM15 rifle was used in the Sandy Hook shootings. It says in this article that XM15 is an M4 type carbine. Miguel is claiming that it's original research to conclude an M4 type carbine was used? I'm no gun expert, so I would appreciate clarification. Mlm42 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see; only some XM15-E2S's are M4 type carbines.. I misunderstood. Yes, this content is more appropriate for the Bushmaster article. Though I'd have to wonder why there isn't an article on the larger class of Bushmaster XM-15 rifles? Mlm42 (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed material which fails inclusion criteria at WP:GUNS#Criminal use--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
