Talk:AR-15–style rifle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

AzureCitizen (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
10,298 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Christchurch: Add note and link.
Line 194: Line 194:
Has it been conformed yet if it was an AR-15 style rifle?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Has it been conformed yet if it was an AR-15 style rifle?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
:The official investigation has not named any of the guns, see the thread [[Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_9#Types_of_gun_used|here]].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 11:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
:The official investigation has not named any of the guns, see the thread [[Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_9#Types_of_gun_used|here]].--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 11:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

::New Zealand's Police Minister said one of the firearms used by the gunman was an AR-15 style rifle ([https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/new-zealand-initiates-bill-to-ban-guns-used-in-mosque-attack read article here]). Regards, [[User:AzureCitizen|AzureCitizen]] ([[User talk:AzureCitizen|talk]]) 18:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:32, 29 April 2019

Template:Vital article

Template:Be calm

Template:Annual readership


Just a bit confused here

Why would some socks/IP editors work so hard to remove a comment that said the press often refers to AR-15 style rifles as "AR-15s"? [[1]] I get that this article draws a lot of people who either want to make it all about the crimes or nothing about the crimes. But I don't get why this bit of text would turn into some sort of edit war. Springee (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colt AR-15 fanatics, likely. Or just strawman trolling. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

My usual note that I've archived any threads that haven't received a further response in ~ a month. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent

The use of this word has been discussed and arrived at by consensus and should be reinstated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was reinstated. Nobody has removed it since you reinstated it. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it was added by a new users (as a minor edit) so it might be worth telling them that is here for a reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SS, "prominent" was added as part of a consensus process, and not an easy one at that. I'm not sure about the other material that was added at the same time. SS self reverted their removal but removal might be the right thing. I'm not sure if the material is supported by any of our current references though I'm sure that could be corrected. My bigger concern is the material seems to be talking about the origin of the Armalite AR-15 vs the generic copies of the Colt civilian model. The lineage as I understand it would be Armalite AR-10 -> Armalite AR-15 -> Colt (M-16 and civilian AR-15) -> generic AR-15s. So while the subject of this article, the generic AR-15s trace back to the AR-10, that lineage is perhaps to distant to be mentioned here. I think it could be OK here with a bit of text massaging or it could be removed with no harm to the article. Springee (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering about that too, this is about a type of rifle, not a specific make. But even if we include it, it has nothing to do with the terminology (rather it is about the historical background).Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edits were good faith and I can see why they were added but I actually agree with your removal upon further consideration. This article didn't say Stoner created the rifle so the additional clarifications aren't needed. I will revert Slatersteven's self revert. Springee (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a citation that does not relate to the claim/statement.

In the Terminology section, there is a claim made about the origin of the name "Modern Sporting Rifle" that has numerous citations. It looks like the first is the only one that has a chance of supporting the claim. The second (I'm using a mobile device; sorry if formatting is off) is a link to a Slate article that discusses an incident in which an AR-15 was used. It appears to be somewhat of an option piece, and it is not a source for the origin of the name. This is the URL: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/06/the_sig_sauer_mcx_used_in_orlando_is_a_modern_sporting_rifle_not_an_assault.html.

I think it should be removed. If somebody loves the article, it would be appropriate for a section (or article) about the AR-15's controversy, political issues, or similar.

How am I doing for a first "Talk" page post? Grossdm (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over inclusion/exclusion of "Use in crime and mass shootings" section

@Slatersteven: @Rmmiller44: please discuss the dispute over this here on the talk page rather than edit warring in the article itself. I have protected the article for 24 hours. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening discussion of appropriateness of the crimes section

Upon seeking trivial information today about the weight of an AR 15, I noticed a section entitled "Use in crimes and mass shootings." This entire section is not NPOV.

This section is completely inappropriate for this entry. It is motivated by political opposition to semi-automatic rifles in general and this gun in particular. The previous talk on this entry exhibits inflammatory emotional appeal to include this section to describe the weapon as horrific. The section refers to this gun as the "Weapon of choice" for mass shootings, a statement that is false, unsupported, and is tainted with normative judgment and bias. A citation does not make this normative opinion a meaningful fact.

The AR 15 just happens to be one of the most prevalent weapon platforms on the planet, and especially in the US. By virtue of its sheer numbers alone, it will be disproportionately involved in crime. This does not make it a "weapon of choice" for crime any more than it is the "weapon of choice" for people defending their homes and businesses, hunting, or national defense. The citation for this comment contains only anecdotal evidence. The mass shootings section is ANECDOTAL, not evidence.

In one of the anecdotes of a mass shooting, the AR 15 was only one of and a minority of the guns used.

Notably, the people who have been fighting for inclusion of this section have demonstrated on this talk page that they would like to have included many more than the 10 worst shootings involving the AR 15. That is, they would prefer to make this article with information ABOUT the AR 15 into a diatribe of criticisms of its existence in public hands.

Mr. Slater, in particular, has reverted my edits twice. My edits contained a full explanation of why I deleted the section with reference to Wikipedia standards. His reversion mentioned that a consensus had been reached for inclusion, yet no such consensus exists in the talk. The only discussion is between people who want to keep the section in how many mass shootings they can discuss, 10, 20, more, all.

Notably, there is no section on the use in crimes in the entry for the Kalashnikov rifle which has been used in the most horrific mass killings in history. While not dispositive, it demonstrates that inclusion of this section for the AR 15 is motivated to change the policies in democratic western countries, not to inform the reader.

It is entirely appropriate to mention in an article about a mass shooting that a particular weapon was used. That information is a critical part of the entry. But that does not imply that a mass shooting with an AR 15 is a critical piece of information about the AR 15. It is anecdotal and parenthetical. As one person said in the edit history, hundreds of millions of these rifles are owned without incident. Another commenter noted that investigative authorities in Christchurch did not confirm the make and model of the firearms used.

As an analogue, a person used a Dodge Charger to run over protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. It is entirely appropriate (although trivial) to mention in the Charlottesville killing entry that a man drove his Dodge Charger into a crowd of protesters. It is completely inappropriate to put a section onto the Dodge Charger (or Dodge) page talking about "Crimes using Dodge Chargers." It attributes to the car the evil actions of the perpetrator. Indeed, the average reader would find the particular car used in that attack as trivial.

The use of the word "style" itself is intentionally vague and ambiguous as a means of attributing to the AR 15 as many misuses as possible. Clearly every rifle commonly used in defense in NATO countries, all which use the same caliber and magazine, will have similar qualities to the AR. Indeed, aesthetic qualities are evolutionary in nature, and those qualities that are desirable will propagate. Indeed, laws in the US and elsewhere that have banned AR-style rifles commonly rely on cosmetic appearance, not function, to define the banned weapons.

I have never been involved in any "edit war" in the 12 years I have been involved with Wikipedia. When I make my edits, I explain my rationale according to the Wikipedia rules. Mr. Slater who reverted my changes merely referred to a "consensus" in the talk that does not exist. He confuses the preponderance of discussion with "consensus." As described in the wikipedia rules, a "consensus" is an agreement on facts for which there is no reasonable dispute. The edit and talk history shows that there is NO CONSENSUS on the inclusion of this section. And to the extent there ever was, I now dispute that with this discussion.

Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a soap box. No encyclopedia would have a section on Use in Mass Shootings for any gun. Mr. Slater is clearly using this page as a soapbox for his anti-gun sentiments.

Wikipedia requires a Neutral Point of View, and Mr. Slater clearly wants an article that denigrates this rifle for the purpose of having them politically banned.

Wikipedia requires DEBATE, not merely reverting changes and saying, "This has been discussed" especially when it has not been discussed. There is no consensus here. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44[reply]

First off please read wp:agf.
As to the wall of text. No we do not say it is " a weapon of choice" we say it has widely been called that (and it is supported by multiple sources).
We also do not say it is disproportionaly used in crime (in fact we say the exact opposite), what we say is that it has been used in half of the deadliest mass shootings. Nor do I recall anyone saying it should be a longer list, in fact far from it (in fact if you care to check you will find I argued against the list, saying it should be more vaguely worded as it will be open to change).
As to no consensus, consensus is not "you agree with me" it is "the most agree". Yes this was a agreed by consensus, look, at how much this has been discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...no such consensus exists in the talk.
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 6 (105 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 5 (217 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 4 (101 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 3 (154 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 2 (84 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 1 (42 instances of "mass shoot")
That's just the talk page archives, not including conversations in the WP:NPOVN archives and elsewhere. Leviv ich 15:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all of them coming down in favour of inclusion, that is what we mean by consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed by the community at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_142 with consensus for inclusion. This doesn't prevent us from revisiting the question, but community consensus should not be overturned without a larger discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with discussion of it again (consensus can change), I do take issue with the characterization of the issues as presented by the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

No, "consensus" does not mean "the most agree" and no such most exists in the talk. The mere fact that a handful of zealots for inclusion temporarily outnumber those who don't does not mean "consensus." A consensus is general agreement, that is, there are no unreasonable disputes about the factual basis for any included entry, section, or fact. Such a disagreement exists here. But factual truth is not the whole measure of what is appropriate in an entry.
No consensus can override the Wikipedia Pillars. This section is inherently non-NPOV designed to oppose this weapon system in government policy. As I've stated more than once, there is no rationale for its inclusion in this ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, and neither you nor anyone else has provided a reason. You are confusing discussion among people of like mind with reaching a consensus. Several people other than me have noted the non-NPOV nature of this section.
I always assume good faith, but when bad faith is obvious, I need not extend it. The section is obviously non-NPOV and no one has attempted to defend it as being NPOV. I have raised this point several times, others have raised this, and you have never argued against that.
I did not say you said it was a "weapon of choice." That is a straw man. And that is also quibbling. Citing someone who says this phrase is giving validity to it. The reference, however, is a bald assertion of someone's OPINION. That opinion is unsupported by any facts and is, in fact, factually false. We could easily spend 30 pages of adding content that talks about what people have said about an AR 15. An encyclopedia entry is about facts, not opinions, not speeches.
As an example, if I edited the Wikipedia entry on "Modern liberalism in the United States" with a section on "Notable Liberals Who Committed Crimes", this would obviously have a political agenda and hence non-NPOV even though every fact is true and well supported with references. You have not addressed WHY this section is not non-NPOV.
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It is not appropriate to include in the AR 15 entry every incident, good or bad, involving the use of an AR 15. Would you favor a section of the top 10 uses of AR 15s in self defense? Other entries on guns don't include this section.
What you favor is not "consensus." It is mob rule. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and talk is not a "vote."

Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44[reply]

We do not include every incident (as far as I know), and I have opposed such making this a list of all crimes involving the AR-15 style rifle. As to why it is not NPOV, well we give both sides of the debate, this we represent all views. Many (many many) RS have made a point about (specifically) the AR-15 and its use in mass shootings (not crime, but deadly mass shootings). If RS said this about cars, politicians or small elephants then it would be fitting to mention this in other articles. The fact is that generally such issues do not arise, even with many other guns. The AR-15 has received a unique level of attention, and out article must reflect that (maybe because it has been used in so many attacks where multiple 10's of people have died, which is all we say).Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is to say "let's not mention that an AR-15 style rifle has ever been used in a mass shooting" which is also an unsatisfactory position per WP:NOTCENSORED, which says "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Like it or not, the AR-15 style rifle has acquired a bit of a reputation due to the ease with which it can fall into the wrong hands (Stoneman Douglas, Sandy Hook etc). It would be wrong to remove all mention of this as it is a key part of the gun's background. I don't believe that some mass shooters have specifically chosen an AR-15 style rifle, but its status as the most common rifle of this type has inevitably led to controversy over whether civilians should own weapons of this type. The article has to look at this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the crux of the issue, its use has been a major public controversy (and has actually changed laws in some countries). We cannot ignore this issue, any more then the media do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is believed that one of the guns used in the Christchurch mosque shootings was an AR-15 style rifle, although there is no direct confirmation of this from the investigators. This is important as it is likely to lead to a change to the gun laws in New Zealand. Again, the article would have to mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather leave that out until its use has been confirmed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Wikipedia should list the guns allegedly used in Christchurch on the basis of "an expert looked at the video and said that it was probably gun x". This may turn out to be true or it may not. The investigators have been tight lipped on the exact make and models used, but nature abhors a vacuum and there are numerous sources claiming to give the make and model of the guns based on analysis of the video. I would be quite happy to remove Christchurch from this article until firm evidence turns up from the investigators themselves. But I can't because the article is fully protected at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's premature to list Christchurch without official confirmation. I would remove it myself if the article wasn't protected.
This article's mass shooting coverage is already extremely limited and is the result of extensive discussion among a diverse group of editors. If folks feel that a specific statement is undue or not supported by sources, they should discuss those specific concerns instead of deleting the entire section. –dlthewave ☎ 17:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not and no one has suggested censoring information about the use of AR 15s in any mass shooting. As I have said multiple times, it is appropriate (albeit trivial) to raise that point in the entry on a particular mass shooting. For example, in the entry on the U. Texas Tower Shooting, it appropriately lists all of the guns the shooter used. However, if you go to the entry for each of the guns, there is not a reference to and not a link back to the Tower Shooting. Talking about the guns the shooter used is factual. Linking the gun to the shooting is propaganda which is expressly forbidden in Wikipedia.
The inclusion of ANY incidents in this entry is non-NPOV. The number of incidents doesn't matter. This is akin to including a section in the entry for "rope" a list of notable suicides by hanging. It serves no purpose whatsoever except to advance one political viewpoint.
The AR has NOT been used in many attacks because attacks with rifles of all kinds are extremely rare. As I have said multiple times, the AR figures disproportionately in these attacks because they are popular, not because they possess qualities that other guns (like the Kalashnikov) don't have. We could have an entry on "Black Rifles" and have a long list of incidents involving black rifles. Yet it isn't the color black that has made them deadly. It is not the color that makes them controversial. And neither does the style of this particular type of weapon figure into any mass shootings. All semi-automatic guns have comparable ability to cause those incidents.
All of the discussions to which you linked above contain vehement objections to including this content. Again, you are confused in thinking that "consensus" means "majority." It does not. Consensus means "general agreement." We all generally agree that the entry on the AR 15 should describe its history, physical characteristics, and adoption by police and military. We do NOT agree generally in describing every or any particular criminal misuse of this product.
A notable exception to what I just said is a newsworthy malfunction in an AR. For example, the Sig Sauer P320 suffered from a defect of firing when dropped causing the company to issue an "upgrade" opportunity. That is relevant information. Discussing the top 10 crimes where someone used a Sig Sauer P320 is not informative; it is propaganda against that particular gun.
It is appropriate to include in the Christchurch Shooting entry that it resulted in a ban of particular types of weapons used in the shooting. That is an informative and relevant section. But the reverse is not relevant or informative. There is no need whatsoever to list every or any misuses of an AR style gun.
Wikipedia standards do in fact support discussion of all meaningful (not fringe) sides of a debate. That is not what is happening here. The section is injecting "debate" into what should be a set of descriptive facts. There are plenty of entries that discuss gun control, and I do not oppose any of them. The issue is that it is not appropriate to raise the issue of gun control or misuse of guns in every (or select) entries on guns.
You are essentially saying that the entry for the Airbus A320 should include a section talking about a German pilot intentionally crashing such a plane. Talking about crashes caused by malfunctions with the plane is one thing. Talking about incidents merely INVOLVING the plane is irrelevant, parenthetical, and derogatory.
The section also gives undue weight to this topic. As I have said and others have said, there is no section on the tens of millions of daily uses of AR 15s that are not part of a mass shooting. There is no section talking about civilian uses of ARs in self-defense; and there should be none. Indeed, the news does not report when planes land, but mentioning incidents in an encyclopedia entry still gives undue weight to arguments against the use of AR 15 style guns. If you think this section is appropriate, then I and others will start populating this entry with incidents where people defended themselves using ARs. Fair is fair.
I accept that Wikipedia is different from many encyclopedias, but entries cannot be allowed to run amok with politically motivated material. No other encyclopedia would have a section like this. None.
If Wikipedia allows this, then I may just start adding sections like this. The rules are designed to STOP disputes, not create them. And this section is creating dispute. By definition, that is not a consensus.

Rmmiller44 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44[reply]

This wall of text is your opinion and does not align with what the sources say. On Wikipedia, we follow the sources, not our opinions.
Most of the information in the Criminal use section is not about individual mass shootings and does not actually belong in the articles about those shootings. Sources including New York Times, USA Today and ABC News are specifically about AR-15 style rifles. They discuss the specific features that make the weapon attractive to mass shooters, compare to other semiautomatics. For balance, we also include the opinion that it is chosen because of the "copycat effect". This is factual information about the role that the weapon plays in sopciety, and it is relevant to the article. We don't exclude content just because it may cast the subject in a bad light, and criminal use is no more propaganda than the hunting section.
Whether you like it or not, reliable sources do not treat all items associated with crime the same way. The role of rope in crime is not widely discussed, so it is not mentioned in our rope article aside from see also links to "hanging" and "flagellation". On the other hand, Boeing 727 and AR-15 style rifle both discuss features that have made them attractive to criminals, since these have received significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that mass shootings should not be discussed in this article is absurd, not to mention against wiki policy. By far the most noteworthy fact about this class of rifles is its use in mass shootings. There is an enormous body of media discussing that, and the evidence shows that many (quite likely most) users coming to this page are looking for that information. Mass shootings should be discussed at much greater length and feature more prominently in this article, and it is only the concerted and determined efforts of a minority of editors that has prevented that.Waleswatcher (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Americans can identify three rifles by model, and this is what they "know" about them: M-16s are used by "the good guys", AK-47s are used by "the bad guys", and AR-15s are used in mass shootings. Leviv ich 17:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waleswatcher's opinion that the current article doesn't feature the mass shooting material prominently enough is just that, their opinion. Same with the claim that a "minority of editors". But it is clear that there is weight to include mass shooting information along with links to the primary articles on the related topics. A significant concern on both sides is balancing the topic. Some editors think this should only be about the rifle as a mechanical device while it's use in mass shootings should be left to articles about crimes. Others feel the only significant thing about these rifles is their use in crime and the rest is trivial. Currently we probably have the right balance since neither side is happy :D Springee (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who said the other side is not happy?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that I have. On consensus: A consensus is general agreement, that is, there are no unreasonable disputes about the factual basis for any included entry, section, or fact. Such a disagreement exists here - False. Consensus is the process by which disputes are mediated by weighing the arguments against policies and guidelines. No consensus can override the Wikipedia Pillars - Policies and guidelines are made through consensus. The pillars themselves are a consensus. For god's sake 5P4 instructs us to [s]eek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The rules are designed to STOP disputes, not create them - No, they are there to mediate disputes. Flat-earthers don't like that our article Earth talks about a globe, but we do not cease to state the facts just because some people don't like them.
On NPOV: ... this would obviously have a political agenda and hence non-NPOV even though every fact is true and well supported with references - If it was well documented and supported by RS, it would be non-NPOV to exclude it.
On content: Wikipedia standards do in fact support discussion of all meaningful (not fringe) sides of a debate - Fringe? I could pull up a 100 sources discussing the use of this particular style of rifle is mass shootings. Page 1 of a google search of "AR-15 in shootings" brings up: What are AR-15 rifles and why are they used so often in US mass shootings (EuroNews); Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings (USA Today); What makes the AR-15 style rifle the weapon of choice for mass shootings (CBS News); Banning the AR-15 Won't Solve the Mass Shooting Crisis (Vice); Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters (ABC News); It's Going to Take More Than Background Checks and AR-15 Bans to stop mass shootings (Stanford Law). You are essentially saying that the entry for the Airbus A320 should include a section talking about a German pilot intentionally crashing such a plane - If the A320 was the "weapon of choice" for plane attacks, then that article would probably have a section discussing it. We have an entire article on the grounding of the 737 MAX, and it's had all of two crashes.
Other stuff: ... and the evidence shows that many (quite likely most) users coming to this page are looking for that information - What the heck is the basis of this assertion? ... and it is only the concerted and determined efforts of a minority of editors that has prevented that - Nonsense. Disputes over the article have been raised at various boards such as WP:NPOVN. The consensus developed there involved dozens of editors and a massive close with multiple findings. That's not a minority effort. Moreover, even at this article, the majority argument has usually been implemented, except where discussion petered out with no clear consensus. That the section exists at all was a result of a consensus that was built here.
Lastly, [c]urrently we probably have the right balance since neither side is happy - rings rather true. If either side were happy that would be a good indicator that the article was either pushing or hiding a POV. There will likely not ever be unanimous agreement here, any more than there is at I/P or Balkan topics. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and the evidence shows that many (quite likely most) users coming to this page are looking for that information - What the heck is the basis of this assertion? The most direct evidence is the huge spikes in page views these articles get immediately following a mass shooting (I've posted graphs at least once here). That establishes "many". "Most" is obviously more difficult, but I suspect it's true, both because of those spikes (which are many times the typical number of views), the fact that the great majority of comments here on the talk page are about this, the (related) fact that many/most of the edits to the page are about this, and the continuous and intense media coverage. On concerted and determined efforts of a minority of editors, see [2] Waleswatcher (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown a correlation between page hits and some mass shootings. What you haven't shown is what the readers were seeking. Were they specifically coming because they wanted to learn about crimes using an AR-15 or were they just interested in knowing about the rifle itself? Citing the OpEd doesn't really help your case since it is just one editor's opinion and the second part of the OpEd points out the issues with that opinion (rather nicely if I do say so myself ;) ). Springee (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters, as it is impossible to say why anyone reads any article, curiosity, desire to learn, they have nothing better to do.Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they do tell us what they are seeking, In this case, a wave of readers who also happen to be editors came to the talk page asking why there was no mention of mass shootings in any of the AR-15-related articles. Additionally, the 2018 RfC shows that there is strong community support for inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch

Has it been conformed yet if it was an AR-15 style rifle?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official investigation has not named any of the guns, see the thread here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand's Police Minister said one of the firearms used by the gunman was an AR-15 style rifle (read article here). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F894740017