Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 26 September 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruger Mini-14 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Firearms B‑class High‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Is the photo in the Criminal Use section relevant?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

.... here is the entire RfC discussion...

Should the "Criminal Use" section contain a photo of the Plaque of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre victims?

• Remove The image has nothing at all to do with the subject matter and adds nothing neutral or relevant to the section. The Mini-14 is a tool. That some people have used the tool criminally is an unfortunate fact and might reasonably be argued to belong in the pagespace. Memorializing the victims of one incident in pagespace about one of the weapons used is inappropriate. The image does seem to be used correctly at the perpetrator's page and at pagespace for the event and the institution. Not here. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remove BusterD is right & I really can't say it better. This is an effort to make the rifle accountable, which is usual in the gun control argument. It's wrong in popular media & has no place here. TREKphiler 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remove: I said it before and I'll say it again: The article is about the weapon, not about its overall use in action. This image belongs in an article devoted to the incident. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remove. The image is not relevant in that it tells us nothing about the gun. (I am responding via notice placed at WP:NPOVN.) - Location (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Full disclosure: I'm the originator of this RFC. I'd like to thank all the commenters for an excellent exposition of their POVs. However, none of them have tied their expositions to any Misplaced Pages policy or Misplaced Pages guidelines, let alone explained how the image violates such policies or guidelines. The relevant policy/guideline states, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central."

Here's a logical argument for the inclusion of the image. 1)The article contains a section entitled "Criminal Use." 2)The Ecole Polytechnique Massacre is listed in this section. 3)The Ecole Polytechnique Massacre was perpetrated using an M-14. 4)The picture illustrates an outcome of said criminal use. 5)The language of the picture's label describes the connection of points 1 through 4 in neutral language with no "hot" words. I believe this dovetails nicely with the guideline. It illustrates an activity already described in the article and the label states, in clear and neutral language, how it relates to said activity. I hope future comments can address this central issue. Tapered (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tapered (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets start with the blatant violation of the NPOV policy. Your POV pushing has no place in this article, and frankly the fact that all you have done is battle everyone else for inclusion of your exclusively held point of view is extraordinarily disruptive. We discussed this before, consensus said lose the image, and now your being a dick in dragging this up again when you were the only one who lost on the deal. Is there any part of this that rings a bell? Its all there, every argument, and counter argument, every policy approved process to determine that the image shouldn't be in the article. And you should know that this is a dangerous point of view, you were blocked for nonconstructive editing on pages relating to pro-life movement some four years ago. We don't own pages here, so this time lets try abiding by the official decision to remove the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. Yes, I was banned four years ago, and almost again last year, in part because of a typing mistake on my part (really, and not trying to duck responsibility for either). So you bring that up to insinuate that my behavior here approaches either of those occasions--which it doesn't. We're a few hours into this process, let's see if I'm alone at the end. If so, too bad. I've stated my argument logically. I notice you didn't try to refute it logically with reference to Misplaced Pages policy. You only labelled my behavior, again without any attempt to describe how my actions here dovetail with the labels. From my point of view, and I suspect others though I won't canvass to find them, most of the arguments against the image are POV. And while I don't own anything @ Misplaced Pages, I did initiate this RFC, so please watch your language. Tapered (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well then; I'll take your advice and let the RFC speak for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remove per the pertinence section of our Manual of Style page on images, which states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." This would be the relevant Misplaced Pages guideline that the above editors would've tied their arguments to if they had decided to devote any time to finding such a common sense policy. It is true that the memorial plaque is indirectly relevant/related to the Ruger Mini-14. However the plaque neither mentions nor depicts the gun (for good reason), and thus adds nothing to the article besides an appeal to emotion. Since the plaque at least a step removed from the subject matter of the article, I don't find it credible that it can be seen as "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The massacre is linked, and the plaque is rightfully there. I'll also note that the above discussion seems to have come to a consensus, but the opener of this RfC didn't like it and started this thread, a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Remove (well, it is removed, but please don't include it). I don't see that it is significantly related to the topic of the article. The plaque does not depict the weapon, and at least one other weapon was used in the assault. In addition, the material in the Criminal Use section is not properly sourced with page numbers, and indeed, one statement is not sourced at all. Consequently, this section conceivably violates WP:Verifiability. auntieruth (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closed I'd like to be completely honest about the reasons for closure, but that would be much more stupid than going up against organized ideologues was in the first place. Now I'm going to get my m-14 and do some long range prairie dog hunting. Tapered (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ruger Mini-14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Nov/Focus_on.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5835&return=Y
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090608193505/http://www.surrey.police.uk:80/about/firearms.asp to http://www.surrey.police.uk/about/firearms.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The National Defense Magazine link is coming back dead. TREKphiler 22:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the A-Team TV show of greater importance than the 2011 Norway attacks?

How come we have a section devoted to this firearms use on a fictional TV show but no mention of a very famous use in real life? Felsic2 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If there's no objection I'll restore the weapon's use in some famous mass shootings. Felsic2 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the recent edits to the page I would guess that there are objections and you shouldn't restore the material without discussion. Springee (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a discussion page, this is my effort at a discussion. Felsic2 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The two items aren't connected. If the A-Team mention doesn't meet WP:POPCULT and relevant guidelines, then propose removing it on that basis alone. Trying to piggyback your preferred info onto its inclusion isn't really a good argument. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you support the inclusion of the A-Team? Do you object to inclusion of real life notable events? Felsic2 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't support the activities of sock puppets, per WP policies, which is why I reverted the diff you linked to above. You haven't given a valid reason for re-including that info, nor have you given a valid reason for removing the A-Team info. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The "valid reason" for including the criminal use material is that it is widely reported information about the subject of the article. It is certainly more noted than the use of the weapon in an American TV show. If there's no one registering an objection I'll restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The last two items weren't properly sourced, so be sure to include reliable sources for all the claims made. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Felsic2 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Given the number of times this information has been removed from the article please get consensus for the addition before adding it. Springee (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I started this thread 12 days ago no one's posted any objection to including the Breivik material. The discussion has been open and I haven't rushed to make an edit. Felsic2 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see . The exact edits that you want to make have just been reverted 10 times by 5 different editors resulting in IP user 86.153.166.89 being blocked. And, as you are fully aware of this, even commenting on said users talk page, don't pretend that there are no objections and restore the edits. --RAF910 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone, from either side, discussing those edits. An unproductive edit war shouldn't affect the content of the article. The edits seem to have been reverted because they were made by a banned sock, not because of the material itself. Felsic2 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then lets make it official...I object to and oppose the addition of a "criminal use" or body count or what ever you want to call it section, to the Mini-14 page.--RAF910 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. You need to provide reason, preferably based on actual Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please see WP:GUNCRIME, my essay discussing some commonly made arguments. Felsic2 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

At the top of the page there is a discussion that is related to the material in question. I see this in the same light as the Chevy Caprice material you added ]. Yes, the crime is clearly significant but that doesn't mean the gun in question was impacted by it's use in the crime. Springee (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: The discussion at #Anders Behring Breivik above seems to overwhelming favor inclusion, five to one. Cars anf guns are different. The more comparable article would be SIG MCX. Felsic2 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a vote, but the addition having been challenged, you need a consensus before you can reintroduce the content. At this point, I join RAF910 in opposing it, and neither they nor I need to convince you of or even share with you our reasons for doing so. The onus is on you to achieve consensus, not on us to tell you why you don't have it. See WP:CONSENSUS. General Ization 01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to WP:CONSENSUS. Here's some of what it says:

• Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines....A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.

If you don't raise any "proper concerns" then there's no way of taking them into account.

• In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

How much weight should we give to an argument based on undisclosed arguments? Based on that policy, the answer appears to be "no weight whatsoever".

• The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Misplaced Pages; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately

What would be an acceptable compromise? Felsic2 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There can be No Compromise as there is NO Encyclopedic value to adding a gratuitous body count to this page or any other page on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you should read WP:Advocate, WP:Not listening & WP:Winning.--RAF910 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If your standard is "encyclopedic value" then can you please provide an objective definition? What is "encyclopedic value"? Felsic2 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to answer any of your questions. It is enough that I oppose your position. Perhaps you should read WP:Gaming the system as well. --RAF910 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS: The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. If you want your objection to carry any weight it must have reasoned arguments. Felsic2 (talk)

This discussion is going nowhere. Enough is enough...If you think that you have consensus, then make the edits and live with the consequences.--RAF910 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What I haven't seen is anyone provide a reasoned argument against inclusion. I don't know what "consequences" there would be for making an edit. What are you talking about? Felsic2 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Conversely, I haven't yet seen you make a reasoned argument for inclusion of the information that has been challenged (which is what you are expected to do in order to build consensus for a change, not just gripe that no one's given you a good reason to not include it). As a start, you could identify other articles concerning assault weapons that include a digest of criminal incidents in which that particular weapon was used. So far, I haven't found one. Since other editors will be expected to help keep such a list up to date, they have a right to understand why you think it will be valuable that they do so. General Ization 17:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As for your argument that "it is widely reported information about the subject of the article", I'd hazard a guess that very few of the reports you were referring to were focused on the model of weapon used in the incidents. If you can find an article that suggests that the Mini 14 is so disproportionately used in such incidents that it is by itself a notable factor in the incidents, and why, then I might agree. Otherwise this information will be primarily of technical interest to arms dealers and aficionados (perhaps along with terrorists who want to emulate Breivik), not to the average reader of the encyclopedia. The average reader will likely find such "scorekeeping" offensive in light of the loss of life in the incidents you propose to list. (I know I do.) General Ization 18:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, though I'll also note that no one has offered any support for the A-Team mention. Other articles don't really matter, per WP:OSE, right? Even so, there are numerous articles about weapons, explosives, posions, etc, that mention notable assoicated deaths. Here are a few: Polonium, Black Talon, Ice axe, Derringer, Gelignite, Colt Cobra, British Bull Dog revolver, M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless, Bolo knife, FIM-92 Stinger, Cyanide poisoning, MP_40#Copies_and_post-war_usage, Pressure cooking, Improvised firearm, ANFO (Note these edits and summaries: ), and many more. If those article can mention deadly uses, why not this one?

One of the main content policies, and the only one that discusses what should be in an article, is WP:NPOV. One part, WP:WEIGHT, says that articles should reflect issues discussed in reliable sources, proportionate to their prominence. In other words, if a matter has been discussed in many sources then it shouldn't be excluded.

Breivik's use of this firearm is far more noteworthy than its use in Bermuda or Rhodesia. If we want to remain neutral, we should report each user with the weight given by sources using a consistent, objective standard.

Information on the historical significance of this firearm is of interest to general readers. The material of interest to enthusiasts and professionals, which are not the intended audience, probably includes minute details like weight, length, obscure variants, and so forth.

We include information whether it's pleasant or unpleasant. Misplaced Pages isn't censored. We have long articles on Breivik and his crime. That means Misplaced Pages is already "scorekeeping" whether we like it or not. Major crimes are of intense interest to the public and also to scholars. In excluding this material, the article is excluding the views of priminent mainstream sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If no one has a policy-based objection I'll go ahead and post a mention of the Breivik attack. Felsic2 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS and while you are reading please review WP:LISTEN. Springee (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Criminal Use revert?

RAF910 please, what is your reason for reverting my edits ? My edits seem in accord with the guidelines and other articles. Would you have better wording?

After I scanned the discussion in this talk page, I did not make the same edits as the IP you mentioned. No "body counts", no repeat of the incident descriptions, which I don't think need to be repeated in this article, used neutral wording, not imflammatory, (to me) added criteria for 2 incidents, following the https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use guidelines, as I understand them, and applied my edits in the similar text pattern, I believe, as I read in these articles; Sig MCX, Bushmaster_XM-15, Carcono

Sorry, I did not clarify the talk page in my edit comment. I was referring to comments in the WP:Guns project talk page, and did read the discussion in this talk page first. Now if I did, I did not mean to irritate you or anyone; and have no agenda, my interest is building an encyclopedia. I think uses, good and bad, belong in this article, like other articles and subjects, in an encyclopedia. I only listed 2 incidents instead of the original 4 incidents since only 2 seemed appropriate to me to be in this article after my research. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Project page talk page excerpts I was referring to in my edit comment: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)

Just like the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles...Perhaps you should read WP:ONUS. The person adding the information has to convince his follow editors that the information has encyclopedic value, not the other way around. And, I object to adding a body count to this article. If you don't understand my position, then read WP:NOT LISTENING. I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time...This time I recommend that you actually read the WP pages. Especially, as those same edit were just reverted 10 times by 5 different editors, resulting in an IP user being blocked and the Mini-14 page being protected.--RAF910 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles