3 ms·

Why exactly should an encyclopedia article about a specific gun model include "gun control, mass shootings, or political efforts"? I can see that sort of conten

Why exactly should an encyclopedia article about a specific gun model include "gun control, mass shootings, or political efforts"? I can see that sort of content being applicable for the "Gun" or "Firearm" article, but not for a specific model's article.

lucideer 9y ago
Including general information about gun control and mass shootings would be out of place in the article, yes. Excluding a controversy whereby that particular product model has been a major subject of discourse on US politics across the globe, with major news publications writing pieces with a primary focus on the AR-15, seems... remiss. The attention given to this model by the public and media is a testament to the product's notability, a metric that's a tenet of Wikipedia editorial policy.
- seabird 9y ago
  That's why this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle page specifically lists all shootings involving AR-15 clones. There were no Colt rifles used in any recent shooting. Should every shooting using an AK-47 pattern rifle be listed on the FB Tantal article, regardless of whether or not an FB Tantal was used?
  - lucideer 9y ago
    The only hint of something that might constitute a reference to the current media discourse is the following grossly defensively toned paragraph: > Although, according to CBS News, "the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings",[41] most killings by guns in the USA involve handguns rather than rifles.[42][43] The statistic on handgun shootings is irrelevant as the paragraph is quoting CBS on "high-profile shootings". Only a single CBS article is referenced (there's tonnes out there), with two counter-references accompanying the irrelevant handgun mention. Even ignoring all that, the very fact that the paragraph starts with the word "Although" belies its intent. Funnily enough, the mentioning of the school shootings in which ARs were used actually seems superfluous. A balanced, unbiased article might exclude that section completely, but instead have a Controversy heading with something like: "In 2018, following a, b, c events, this model became the subject of widespread pubic controversy in the US and worldwide due to x, y, z. {insert arguments espoused on both sides of media discourse}"
    - seabird 9y ago
      I agree with you on every point. My guess is that the idea was to link to more complete information by having direct links to the "mass shootings" article, the Australian legislature, and the shootings involving AR-15 clones, but the cultural relevance isn't mentioned and it all seems underdeveloped, especially with the dismissive handgun paragraph and bizarrely specific/niche Religion mention under it.
JohnStudio 9y ago
Honestly, I can't agree more with this. It's like talking about cars, and then talking about weapons of mass destruction. Its falls in the context of scope, and not creep over that scope. But it is what it is. Keep it separated.

lucideer 9y ago

Including general information about gun control and mass shootings would be out of place in the article, yes. Excluding a controversy whereby that particular product model has been a major subject of discourse on US politics across the globe, with major news publications writing pieces with a primary focus on the AR-15, seems... remiss. The attention given to this model by the public and media is a testament to the product's notability, a metric that's a tenet of Wikipedia editorial policy.

seabird 9y ago
That's why this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle page specifically lists all shootings involving AR-15 clones. There were no Colt rifles used in any recent shooting. Should every shooting using an AK-47 pattern rifle be listed on the FB Tantal article, regardless of whether or not an FB Tantal was used?
- lucideer 9y ago
  The only hint of something that might constitute a reference to the current media discourse is the following grossly defensively toned paragraph: > Although, according to CBS News, "the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings",[41] most killings by guns in the USA involve handguns rather than rifles.[42][43] The statistic on handgun shootings is irrelevant as the paragraph is quoting CBS on "high-profile shootings". Only a single CBS article is referenced (there's tonnes out there), with two counter-references accompanying the irrelevant handgun mention. Even ignoring all that, the very fact that the paragraph starts with the word "Although" belies its intent. Funnily enough, the mentioning of the school shootings in which ARs were used actually seems superfluous. A balanced, unbiased article might exclude that section completely, but instead have a Controversy heading with something like: "In 2018, following a, b, c events, this model became the subject of widespread pubic controversy in the US and worldwide due to x, y, z. {insert arguments espoused on both sides of media discourse}"
  - seabird 9y ago
    I agree with you on every point. My guess is that the idea was to link to more complete information by having direct links to the "mass shootings" article, the Australian legislature, and the shootings involving AR-15 clones, but the cultural relevance isn't mentioned and it all seems underdeveloped, especially with the dismissive handgun paragraph and bizarrely specific/niche Religion mention under it.

JohnStudio 9y ago

Honestly, I can't agree more with this. It's like talking about cars, and then talking about weapons of mass destruction. Its falls in the context of scope, and not creep over that scope. But it is what it is. Keep it separated.