Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colt AR-15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.colt.com/mil/M16_2.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628234759/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018
Due to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, editors are attempting to add said information to this page, even-though we have no confirmation as to what type of AR-15 was use during said shooting. And, it in no way adds to the notoriety of the Colt AR-15, which already a well known firearm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"it in no way adds to the notoriety of the Colt AR-15" - maybe not, but it's certainly notable in its own right and deeply related to the topic of this article. This article appears to be routinely censored. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...but the reverse isn't true Jamesinderbyshire, that is that the subject of this article is not deeply related to the shooting. Not censored but rather maintained under guidelines. See WikiProject Firearms. We don't mention every crime where automobiles have been used in the articles on automobiles themselves as they don't belong there. Information on the shooting isn't germane to this article.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It may be controversial to single out Colt's brand, but it definitely makes sense to add something like "The AR-15 and its derivatives are the weapons used in most mass shootings in the USA. " Feel free to add more references to any of the thousands of sources. 240D:0:4F4D:A600:F499:8B48:A2D7:5EF2 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the source and it does not contain the quote posted here. 72.84.244.79 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE adding mass shooting information.--Limpscash (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Different weapon. The fact that it's a derivative isn't relevant to this article, which discusses this specific firearm. ansh 666 19:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018 (2)
Remove uses section, has been added after being denied repeatedly. TastesLikeWall (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please give me an example. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was taken care of here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly justifies denying it's addition? The AR-15 is notable because of its use in mass shootings.  There are literally thousands of media articles on that topic.  It's why people come to this page.  The reverted edit addresses this, is well-sourced and clear.  Maybe the title of the paragraph should be changed from "Uses" (which also includes hunting apparently) but "Media coverage"?  The rule quoted in the reversions seems to indicate that for an otherwise notable weapon, criminal uses are not to be expounded upon.  Yet, that's not the case here.  As I said above, the AR-15 is notable mostly because of its use in mass shootings.240D:0:4F4D:A600:F499:8B48:A2D7:5EF2 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems entirely appropriate to begin devising a "Cultural influence and impact" section, which you see on other widely recognized firearms pages: AK-47. Given that it is probably the second-most recognized and media-featured gun among English speakers after the AK-47, the current page looks woefully incomplete. Emoprog (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE adding mass shooting information.--Limpscash (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, how do you propose addressing the fact that the aspect surrounding the AR-15 that affects probably the largest number of people and drives the majority of its appearance in the media is its use in mass shootings? Do you propose omitting all media coverage of the AR-15, or just the parts that you don't like? Would you go ahead drafting a "Cultural influence and impact" session or similar to enlighten us to what you would have done differently from the reverted edits? Or are you just going to stand there, shaking your head, shouting "OPPOSE" in bold letters? 2400:2410:9021:8D00:4085:3942:9C5:93B4 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is it conflates the generic term "AR-15" with the specific brand and model covered by this article. We wouldn't discuss trucks in general terms in an article about the "Toyota Truck".Springee (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that AR-15 redirects here. If that redirection were changed to Modern sporting rifle I would agree with your argument. 2400:2410:9021:8D00:449F:4B57:9997:FB3D (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose--RAF910 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The association of AR-15 patern rifiles and mass shootings seems significant enough that it should be included in an article about AR-15 patern rifiles.  The Colt AR-15 is a particular brand and model of a firearm.  It is not a generic term/name.  Thus general associations should not be in this article.  Currently the article that attempts to address the generic AR-15 patern rifle is the Modern Sporting Rifle article.  Personally I disagree with that title since non-AR15 patern rifles could still be called Modern Sporting Rifles.  I know there has been a lot of debate about this since "AR-15" is a term that is used generically but legally is not a generic term.  Springee (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - mass-shootings already have their own articles, all relevant info is, or should be, in that page and not needlessly duplicated on other articles. If we start adding info about just one shooting incident to one tenuously-connected article, we'll be opening a literal Pandora's box (figuratively speaking) . We'll have to add info on numerous firearms-related incidents to multiple articles, throwing many of them out of balance. - the WOLF  child  19:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether something was "really" an AR-15 or not (maybe it had a different caliber, maybe it was a knock-off, whatever) doesn't really matter. Of course people come here for that kind of info, and technicalities miss the point (the guy who handed in his to the cops, OK so it was an AR-57, but in many important ways it was the same thing). Guitar articles have lists of notable players, and those are much more poorly verified than what we can write up here., you seem pretty close to common sense, yet at the last moment you say "legally is not a generic term"--as if you saw the truth but then your phone rang and it's Fruit Ninja. This is part of the usual response: deny, quibble over what kind of gun it was and laugh at amateurs who get it wrong, thoughts and prayers. Well, look at WP:COMMONNAME: like it or not, America calls "it" an AR-15, just like the rest of the world uses "AK-47" for a wide variety of weapons that all look the same. So a sentence like "the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for most white male mass murderers in the United States" is more than appropriate here. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I understand what you are saying about generic vs trademarked vs common usage names. I'm not going to get mad if the "Kleenex" you hand me is actually a generic facial tissue.  The problem is not too long ago there was a big discussion about what is the correct article title for the generic "AR-15" rifle aritcle.  If I can find the discussion I will post it. Anyway as I recall, the issue was Colt does have a trademark on the name AR-15 thus Wikipedia should respect the trademark over the considerations of WP:COMMONNAME.  That is why I said "legally".  Currently the "generic" AR-15 page is the "Modern Sporting Rifle" page.  I don't like that name for a number of reasons but that is the correct place for information that applies generically to AR-15 pattern rifles (I would prefer a name like "AR-15 pattern rifle" but that's another matter.  I'm normally not for including specific crimes on the pages of say the S&W version of the AR-15 because the crimes aren't associated with a specific make and model, only the generic "AR-15".  The Florida shooting wasn't committed with an AR-15 (tm) but, if I'm not mistaken a S&W M&P-15 (an AR-15 pattern rifle).  Since only Colt makes AR-15 I suspect we would find, technically, almost none of those crimes were committed with an "AR-15 (tm)".  When articles talk about AR-15 crimes they are actually talking about crimes committed with an AR-15 pattern rifle.  I think the crime information should go into a generic AR-15 article.  I don't think that article should be named "Modern Sporting Rifles".  The form of the crime information I'm sure will be a subject for hot debate.  Springee (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to do what is right for the readers. Technicalities are less important. Yes, we should maybe have a generic "AR-15" article--I can dig that. But if we do not include this kind of info somewhere we are being ridiculously inconsistent and hypocritical, as if we are defending Colt--if you've been around as long as I have you know we include this kind of info, and in this case verifying it properly will not be difficult. BTW, I didn't know it was the one (tm) or the other (tm)--like millions of people (I suspect), I don't care for those precisions. Thank you again for the suggestion; let's see how this goes., you know these things, don't you? What say you? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * we do have an article for the generic "AR-15", over at modern sporting rifle (which is the industry term for this, apparently). We do include this kind of info, in that article and many others. In any case, yes, we are defending Colt (analogous to BLP), since all they've done is invent a firearm design that others copied. None of this crime stuff is relevant here, and that's what we should be telling people while directing them to the right places. That's what would be right for the readers. ansh 666 04:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , I wonder if you noticed that your text with its references to mainstream organizations like the NYT and ABC News was done away with as "hyper hyper partisan political info". Drmies (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was in fact surprised that my addition summarizing the popularity and criminal use of the rifle was removed as "hyper-partisan". However, since I sometimes work in arbitration enforcement related to US politics, and this is sort of related, I don't intend to get into a content dispute about this.  Sandstein   08:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, all you opposers, have you seen this? What do you think 330,000 visitors in two days are here for? And which one of you is going to put up a sign, some notice, that says to those 350,000 readers YALL WRONG AND NOT SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT WHEN THEY SAY AR-15 THEY MAY BE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SPORTING RIFLE AND THERE REALLY IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS WEAPON AND THOSE SHOOTINGS. I'm looking forward to seeing how you will phrase this in a way that is informative for the reader--and remember we're not here for you, not for the Firearms project, not for Colt, not for the NRA--we're here for the reader. And here you had 350,000 readers who were most likely not here to read up on what kinds of calibers and barrels were available for this gun. I think we should have a full-blown RfA for this, not a brief note on the Firearms project (WikiProject_Firearms)., I am not impressed by this edit and summary: that section points at legislation (which the US has been discussing for years now for this kind of weapon, and for a while he had it) and notoriety (and it's hard to deny that that exists for this gun). Drmies (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , the people that got to this article did so by clicking on links in other articles and were informed about the AR-15 and the clones. No loss has occurred here. The info for the events doesn't need to be in this particular article. Re-evaluate my edit and you will see that is pursuant to NPOV and preventing undue weight to "Uses". Do you think it is permissible to have a "Uses" section and the only thing listed is about mass shootings and the weapon being the choice of the perpetrators? There is nothing there about target shooting, law enforcement usage (AR-15s have been used to take out perpetrators, too), varmint hunting, competitions, etc. Do you think that it is neutral to present to our readers in such a way? This isn't some kind of censorship and as the guidelines state, you write about the events and link to it in the 'See also' section. If you open up the idea of mass shootings and other crimes as being entered in the article then you can expect other editors to begin to balance or even bury those with tales of good usage. Those have been kept out also...it isn't censorship like you think. This has been a perennial issue and was more recently discussed here.
 * We have an article on the model rifle used in the Florida school shooting. It's Smith & Wesson M&P15.  The article on the shooting should send readers there.  --DHeyward (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to put something in, considering that media generally uses "AR-15 type rifle" or something similar to refer to what we on Wikipedia call modern sporting rifles. I think having a round count and/or death count like ' attempt is probably WP:UNDUE, but it captures the general idea quite well. ansh 666 02:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, the SIG MCX isn't even related to the AR-15 in design, which may make it a poor example of MSRs, but a good example of people not doing enough research. ansh 666 03:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose In general news reports will say anything with a STANAG magazine is an "AR-15." There are many NATO compatible rifles and this article isn't about what gets (mis)labeled by the press. Certainly within the context of current political discussion of gun control, banning AR-15s is a meaningless term.  The case in point is the S&W MP15 used in the Douglas school shooting is very different from the Sig MCX.  Rifles with compatible magazines can be every different, such as the IWI Tavor.  There are also 9mm versions that accept Glock magazines but those pisto caliber sporting rifles are not "Glocks" simply because they accept Glock magazines.  There are no set of features that would describe all the weapons the press label as AR-15s and Glocks.  --DHeyward (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
So as the repeated edit wars continue to reinsert information about mass shootings we should have a discussion on what if anything should be included in this article. Should information about any AR-15 related shooting be in this article? PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, per WikiProject_Firearms. There is notoriety enough (see the New Yorker article already cited) and the discussion over banning semi-automatic weapons, with the AR-15 and its clones/lookalikes as the poster child. Someone just killed 19 people with one of these, in case you missed it. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The place for criminal use is in the article about the crime. There is no fiscussion over banning semi-automatic weapons,  No one has proposed such a ban.  As for things like "assault weapons ban" it covers featurea, not models or actions. You can look at California for reference and google "California compliant ar-15".  Even the "assault weapons ban" of 1994 did not ban what is generically termed an AR-15 and they were made and sold during that time.  Last I checked the school shooter did not use a bayonet and the it was daytime so the flash hider wasn't really necessary.  Take those off and it wasn't a "banned" rifle.  If this does not make sense, we have articles on all the terms, legislation and features.  --DHeyward (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the rifle used was not a Colt but as Drmies points out a SIG MCX this would not be the right article. It kind of sounds like more of a issue with how we redirect AR-15 to this article instead of Modern sporting rifle. Would it make sense to change the redirect to there instead or was there a previous discussion on that? So sounds like the right article is the modern sporting rifle and Mass shootings in the United States. PackMecEng (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the context of "AR-15" being a generic label for a certain type of firearms, making clear that when media and even police say "AR-15", they're usually not actual AR-15s, and sometimes not even AR-15 derivatives (of course, in as much detail as sourcing allows). It could be helpful to change AR-15 from a redirect here to a disambiguation page of some sort as well, though I'm not sure there are enough possible targets for policy to allow it. ansh 666 03:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is a bit of a pickle perhaps we could start with a little something at the top like the Kleenex article "For the generic item, see Modern sporting rifle." PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Err, well I'm an idiot. There is already a disambiguation page. Perhaps we should be having a discussion about primary topic instead. ansh 666 04:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, generic material about "AR-15" crimes should not be in this article. I'm generally against including crime information (not in all cases) but we should always exclude it if the article is not about the crime gun in question.  That said, I would suggest we change the "AR-15" redirect from this page to the disambiguation page[].  That page should be edited to make it clear this is the article for the Colt AR-15(TM) rifles and that the generic AR-15 pattern rifle page is (currently) the Modern Sporting Rifle page.  Note, I really dislike the "Modern Sporting Rifle" term since that could, in my opinion, include versions of the Mini-14, Sig MCX and even rifles patterned on the Stg-44.  Springee (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018
Please add a statement detailing this weapon's use in American mass shootings, including the Douglas High School shooting earlier this week. 46.236.124.82 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently being discussed above. FYI, this specific weapon is almost never used in mass shootings; instead, they're usually modern sporting rifles which are only based on its design. ansh 666 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Lower receiver differences from military M16/M4
All lower receivers currently made are physically different from from miltary lower receivers include the depth and width of the shelf and pocket as well as the hole for the autosear not being present. I've never seen a receiver that could accept the military autosear or even the drop-in autosear. When did Colt change the lower receiver? These details are what make it different from an assault rifle so if anyone has a date and source, we should add it. --DHeyward (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Machinegun conversions are not unique to the AR-15 and should not be mentioned in this article. --RAF910 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed they should not be mentioned here. But I was under the impression if you add the extra holes and widen the pocket for the autosear that would make it a automatic weapon regardless if it had those parts installed in the eyes of the ATF and require the permits for such. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Under U.S. law, any attempt to alter a semi-automatic firearm may be seen as an unlawful conversion. Even a broken or malfunctioning firearm that fires more than one shot per trigger pull may be seen as an unlawful conversion.--RAF910 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Management of this article by the NRA
Has there been a study to see if the editors who are routinely blocking and censoring valid and relevant, newsworthy and highly notable information from the article about the role of this weapons system in civilian mass murders in the USA are being co-ordinated? I would think the NRA and Colt, for two organisations, might well have such a motive. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Orlando nightclub shooting
Recently "--for instance, the perpetrator of the Orlando nightclub shooting was described as having used an "AR-15-type assault rifle", in the words of the Orlando police chief, even though Omar Mateen actually used a SIG Sauer MCX." was added to the Modern sporting rifle section. Should it remain or is it undue? PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be removed. Also, I should point out that the info is also wrong. Assault rifles are select-fire weapons. The SIG MCX is a semi-automatic rifle.--RAF910 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you Firearm boys just having conversations among yourselves, creating consensus by way of rhetorical ping-pong? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just hoping to put an end to all the back and forth. It's starting to get ridiculous on all sides. PackMecEng (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be here. This article is about the COLT AR-15. Putting the Orlando etc incidents in here is like putting a mention of facial tissues uder the brand Kleenex just because people may use the term incorrectly. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion--Limpscash (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion. Why is this even here? Just because the Miami Police Chief misspoke, we're adding info about a mass-shooting that this rifle had nothing to with? Including links to the shooting and shooter? This kind of POV-back-door-addition is completely inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. - the WOLF  child  00:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Colt AR-15 (tm) vs AR-15 pattern rifles
Wikipedia articles should maintain a general hierarchy were broader information is contained in one article while specific detains are contained within a more specific article. Thus an article about the Ford Taurus shouldn't contain generalized information about Ford's overall lineup or the general environmental impact of commuting by car vs bus. I've removed information that, while properly sourced, was about AR-15 style rifles in general, not specifically about this Colt model.[][] Both of these additions are generalized and would be more appropriate at the AR-15_style_rifle page. For example, the second entry says "are frequently used in mass shootings in the United States, including in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack". Unless I'm mistaken, none of those attacks used a Colt AR-15 rifle thus that information doesn't belong here.

Please note that earlier today the "Modern Sporting Rifle" article was renamed to "AR-15 style rifle". This article is specific to Colt manufacted rifles. I'm not sure why anyone thought it was a good idea to have an "AR-15" search end up here vs going to a disambiguation page. Springee (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not sure? Drmies (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't mention Colt once (using AR-15 as a generic name) and even adds a correction to say that one of them wasn't an AR-15 pattern rifle. Do you even read these? ansh 666 20:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure. Colt's weren't used at any of those shootings. Reliable sources confirm it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
Since the article has a section on Colt_AR-15, I propose that the following be added to the section:
 * Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, according to the New York Times. It has been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association. It has also been the weapon used in many mass shootings in the US. Several million are estimated to be in circulation in the United States.

The content comes from the lead of AR-15 style rifle and is relevant here. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, this is an article about Colt's AR-15 (tm) rifle.  This is not the correct article for information that is about AR-15's in general.  That section of the article should be edited to remove the references to crimes that were not committed with Colt AR-15 rifles.  Now that we have an AR-15 style rifle article there is no reason to pack that information into this article.  Springee (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By this logic, should we remove the entire Colt_AR-15 section? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is reasonable for the article to say that when the Colt patents expired other makers started producing their own parts and complete rifles. Springee (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support if the article doesn't cover what an AR-15 actually is, then it's not complete. The fact that the AR-15 is extremely desirable to aspiring mass murderers, and the subsequent political controversy over whether ordinary people should be able to own one, are both the most notable attributes of the design. That's so intrinsic that no article about a particular brand is going to be able to get away from that. That's particularly true for this case, since the Colt AR-15 is apparently the original, every AR-15 used in a mass shooting is part of its legacy. Geogene (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? When talking about the Wright Flyer do we talk about how the airplane dropped the A-bomb?  This isn't an article about what the "AR-15" (the generic term) is.  This is an article about a particular model.  This is really poor logic.  Springee (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course we would, if it were the same design. But it isn't. In fact, the rate at which firearms technology and aviation technology advanced in the 20th Century couldn't be more different. Firearms have long since been perfected to the point where the technology is largely stagnant. The Colt 1911 is still popular, and the AR-15 is something like a 60 year old design. Sixty years is also about the same amount of time that passed between Kitty Hawk and Apollo 11. Geogene (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't support your POV. As this is no longer (and never should have been) the primary article about AR-15 pattern rifles, a design that predates Colt's involvement, why put it here vs the parent article on the subject?  Springee (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's necessary for an article about the "Colt AR-15" to fully delineate what an AR-15 is, because this AR-15 and those other AR-15s are effectively the same thing, and because when reliable sources discuss the controversy over AR-15s, they do so in general without distinguishing between brands. Therefore, trying to keep the controversy out of this article by trying to contain it in other articles is a POV fork. Geogene (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If they are not about the Colt AR-15 specifically, the information should be in the AR-15 style rifle article. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a prohibited POV fork. All articles devoted to specific brands of AR-15 are required to have some coverage of controversies about AR-15s generally, unless the criticism only applies to a specific brand (which I haven't seen happen yet). You can't escape criticism by spinning off daughter articles. The criticism comes along too. Geogene (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So what you are purposing is every AR-15 style article should have the same criticism listed regardless if it is about that rifle or not? That would be like saying cars are bad for the environment so every make and model should state that. It also seems backwards to say the AR-15 style rifle is the daughter article, since that is the broad article and this the narrow one. PackMecEng (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not like that, because there are hundreds of car models currently in production at any given time worldwide. How many different brands of AR-15 are there in production now? By the way, some cars that are egregiously bad for the environment do get coverage of this aspect, in the same way that a gun design that's particularly associated with criminality does. Geogene (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well from our article 23 from large manufactures, with tons more from smaller places. Also the specific Colt model is not egregiously associated with crime, so kind of makes my point there. PackMecEng (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, you are incorrect that Colt AR-15 is not egregiously associated with crime. It was used in the Port Arthur massacre, which resulted in Australia effectively banning most types of firearms, not just AR-15s, and not just Colt AR-15s. I'm sure you agree that belongs in this article? Geogene (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a good point actually, and I would support that information about the Australian ban in this article. I would still not conflate that with egregious or even common use in crime. PackMecEng (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a comparable example would be Vehicle-ramming attack, which mentions the Unite the Right rally incident which talks about the car. But the car used a Dodge Challenger article does not mention the attack. Even though car attacks have become more common in the past 10 years. PackMecEng (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because Dodge Challengers are not particularly known for being useful in vehicle ramming attacks. There is no reliably sourced political debate over whether Dodge Challengers should be banned or restricted for this purpose. No countries have ever banned Dodge Challengers, or vehicles generally, for this purpose. So this is not a valid comparison. But if such a ban did come about, it wouldn't apply specifically to one manufacturer, it would apply to all vehicles with the same mass and performance characteristics that make them useful for such an attack. Geogene (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Geogene, you have your hierarchy backwards. This is a sub-article of the parent "AR-15 style rifles".  The material you wish to include applies to the parent article.  It doesn't apply to this one and you are trying to put it in because it's tangentially related.  You should review wp:weight.  Please find articles about the Colt AR-15 which focus on AR-15 mass shootings.  Springee (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's disingenuous because, as you know, reliable sources on the political aspect of the AR-15 do not distinguish between brands. They invariably treat all AR-15s as the same gun. They are mostly correct in doing so, as the performance of one type in a mass shooting is effectively identical to the performance of any other. The distinction between the Colt AR-15 and others are artificial ones being used by Wikipedia editors to create a POV fork, in violation of policy. Geogene (talk)
 * You are correct, the political aspects of the AR-15 topic don't distinguish between brands. That's why the material should go into the general AR-15 article.  If it's something that applies to the class then it goes there. Springee (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If the sources criticize AR-15s without distinguishing between brands, then all articles about specific brands of AR-15 must have the same criticism, in proportion to the overall size of the article. That's my reading of WP:POVFORK. By the way, it doesn't help that Google search results for "AR-15" put this article at the top. None of the other Wikipedia articles about AR-15s even appear on the first page of my search results. So, for most of the people googling the term, you're sweeping criticism under the rug this way. That's probably why POVFORK is a policy. Geogene (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I would even say get rid of the "AR-15 style rifle" section and move most of the stuff related to Colt and ArmaLite to the History section.PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This article is entirely about the history, operation, and features of the Colt AR-15, with only a tiny section about related or derivative weapons. It doesn't really make sense to include information about crimes committed using those weapons in that section. The article for those weapons already contains that information, and is linked in this section. It's too much detail about something too indirectly related. If people are interested in other types of AR-15, then that's what the disambiguation links at the top and the see-also links throughout are for. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except...that WP:POVFORK is a thing. Quote: The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. Geogene (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The pov fork is something I am not sure I fully understand in this context. Neither article is new, the other article is the parent article, and I'm not sure the POV in either. Basically we have the general AR-15 article the AR-15 style rifle and below that we have all the articles for specific AR style rifles like this one. I will say however we have issues with how our redirects are setup. Most should be going to the style rifle and not here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article and the AR-15 style rifle article are about separate (though related) subjects. This isn't a case where two different articles are about different perspectives on the same topic - the articles are about different things. This isn't a POV fork, and I'm not sure why you're bringing up that policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see that you don't understand the policy. The distinction is an artificial one that isn't being made in sourcing about public policy. For regulatory purposes, nobody cares if it's made by Colt or Bushmaster. It's being used, in effect, to suppress anything that might appear to be a negative perspective about the subject of the article. That's pretty shameful, I think. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Every facial tissue isn't a Kleenex and every adhesive bandage isn't a band-aid, even if people misuse the term. This is about the COLT, not copies. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be WP:UNDUE for the Band-Aid article to mention the fact that Band-Aids were a new and innovative product that led to the widespread use of adhesive bandages in general? –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be undue, in fact I think it would be very relevant. What, in that example, would be undue is to mention that Band-Aid's product lead to the widespread use of adhesive strips (due) which then lead to an outbreak of skin rashes when an off brand adhesive strip was distributed without proper sterilization. Springee (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that that would be UNDUE. But if it were subsequently found that all adhesive bandages (somehow) caused cancer, then it would be DUE for the Band-Aid article. By the way, I should note that mass shootings aren't happening because of some defect in guns, manufacturer-specific or otherwise. They appear to be operating exactly as designed. Geogene (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We haven't found that all AR15's cause.... well, anything. The guns are operating fine, but being misused. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion--Limpscash (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose again--RAF910 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above - the WOLF  child  19:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Since this is directly relevant to the article, I propose adding the following section: Following the use of a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine in the Port Arthur massacre, the worst single-person shooting incident in Australian history, the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996 was enacted, restricting the private ownership of high capacity semi-automatic rifles in that country.
 * Use in mass shooting

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm mixed on this. Per project guidelines this should be included as a "also see" link rather than in the text.  On one hand I support that view because I don't see any evidence that this rifle (Colt AR-15) is widely associated with the crime in say the way a Carcano is associated with Kennedy's assassination or a white Ford Bronco is associated with OJ Simpson.  A critical factor is do articles about the gun (not AR's in general but Colt AR-15s) commonly discuss it.  This is why the Oklahoma bombing isn't mentioned in the Ford F-600 article.  On the other hand, the crime and the resulting outcome are VERY significant due to the  legal changes that resulted from the crime.  I would lean towards inclusion in the text but I think I would change it from "Mass shootings" to a "Port Arthur massacrer" section title.  Springee (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This usage seems to meet the projects guidance (which appears to be an essay, not a guideline):
 * WikiProject_Firearms: "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)..."
 * Am I reading it correctly? P.S. I'd be good with changing the section to "Port Arthur massacre". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The last sentence says, "Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section."Springee (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if the use is highly notable, as is the case here, only a link in See also? This does not seem right. Perhaps that's what the RfC being discussed at the project level (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms) should be about. K.--[[User:RAF910|RAF910 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)e.coffman]] (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do plan on including that in the RfC. I've been busy and it's turning into a multifaceted issue, but it should be ready soon.–dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Every gun article should list the most notable crimes the model or design was used in. For most people that aren't gun enthusiasts, this is really the only thing they're known for. Geogene (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So part of your reasoning is that we should reinforce the ignorance of people who don't know the difference? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Culturally relevant. London Hall (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per numerous discussions about criminal use. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if these discussions were listed. Here's two that I located:
 * Talk:Ruger_Mini-14 -- the consensus was to "include".
 * Talk:SIG_MCX/Archive_1 -- the consensus was to "include".
 * I've seen another one where the decision was "not to include", but can't locate it at this point.
 * In any case, the rough consensus seems for inclusion in this article. I'll give it another 24 hours and then implement the change. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are different articles with different facts and circumstances. You can't take what happened there and call it consensus here. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion--Limpscash (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could provide a reason. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose again and again--RAF910 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposes without rationales are generally discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that the rationale has been presented...every time someone proposes the same crap suggestion in a slightly different package with the same old justification. Yes, consensus can change, but I swear we must have discussed this 5 times in the past 18 months. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutrally presented, encyclopedic information with three unimpeachable sources (Australian government, Guardian, and Foreign Affairs). They should at least attempt to justify non-inclusion, all I'm seeing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's remarkable in itself that the Wikipedia article at the top of Google searches for AR-15, which has been getting 30,000 page hits a day, has nothing about the political controversy. Remarkable enough that this could be a scandal if meddling journalists found out about it. Of course, all the oppose !votes are against policy and therefore void. Geogene (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose At least with the current wording. Something about this should be included because unlike all the other "we must report this for the greater good!" crap that has been pushed this actually involves the Colt AR-15 specifically. What needs to change to make it neutral would be get rid of the "the worst single-person shooting incident in Australian history" trivia and get rid of high capacity since that was not mentioned in any of the sources. Then I could go for support. PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above. And, why are these proposals still being discussed here? We have an RfC about this going on right now at Village pump (policy), at the request of the OP. - the WOLF  child  19:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As exposed by national news media, this article has been hijacked by a cabal of pro-gun editors. The proposed information is pertinent, reasonably neutral and reliably sourced. Fluous (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite what was stated in the op-ed, nothing has been 'hijacked' by pro-gun editors. If anything, it is the exact opposite – edits which contradict long-standing policy have been pouring in from the other side. Discuss this policy in the appropriate place, and if policy is updated, then the relevant sections can be added to the appropriate articles. JustinFranks (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you referring to? I'm unaware of any that would specifically prohibit this. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Of the three sources given for the proposed section, one of them never mentions the model of gun used, and the other two only mention it once, in passing. My limited searching has not turned up any other sources that make a more substantial connection between the Colt AR-15 and the Port Arthur massacre. This isn't like the section in the generic AR-15 article about mass shootings—in that article numerous reliable sources discuss the weapons in terms of the shootings they're used in, in more than just a cursory fashion or simple mention. If any editor can present sources that do describe in detail how the the Port Arthur massacre was important to the Colt AR-15, or vice versa, I will change my vote. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that the gun used in this mass shooting is irrelevant is an absurdity, but here you are . Do you have some argument against mentioning the gun? Geogene (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the gun used is irrelevant to a shooting. I'm saying the shooting is not always relevant to the gun. "Should an article about a shooting mention a gun" is a different question than "should an article about a gun mention a shooting". That source does nothing to change my mind. While slightly more substantial than the bare mentions in the other sources, the description of the link is cursory. The author makes no distinction between the Colt AR-15 and the other semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting, nor do they even describe the effect the massacre and subsequent legislation had on the gun. This is very different from the situation with all kinds AR-15s and their use in mass shootings in the US, where recently sources have gone into great detail about the relationship between the guns and the shootings, and how in the popular mind the AR-15 class of weapons is associated with their use in numerous mass shootings. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"AR-15" vs "Colt AR-15" vs "Modern sporting rifle": A Brief History
I was told on the Talk page of AR-15 style rifle that “The Colt AR-15 article used to be the general AR-15 article", so I looked the history up. Hopefully, this will make it clearer for new participants.

Indeed, until August 2016, this page was the AR-15 page: move diff. Note the infobox, which stated that the rifle is being manufactured by a variety of vendors: "ArmaLite, Colt, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, Stag Arms, DPMS Panther Arms, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington Arms, Daniel Defense, Olympic Arms and others".

Following the move, AR-15 became a redirect to this page. The page on Modern sporting rifle had been created earlier and, as of Jan 2016, focused on the term "Modern sporting rifle":.

I found a related Talk page discussion here: Talk:Colt_AR-15/Archive_2. The relevant portion is:

Not sure what happened with the generic AR-15 content ("the last page" / "AR-15 rifle"), as it was not added to the “Modern sporting rifle” article; here's that page as of Nov 2016:

So in August 2016, the generic AR-15 article all but disappeared, and AR-15 overview page was moved to the Colt AR-15 article. (I don't think that was appropriate, BTW, to turn a generic type-of-firearm page into a product page by adding a brand name to it).

In any case, I don't think it's possible to have it both ways. The “AR-15” and “Colt AR-15” are very closely connected, so this article *should* discuss the AR-15 in general. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that does a great job of illustrating why we have this confused mess. The generic AR-15 page was never created when this one was rescoped.  Rather than renaming the modern sporting rifle page we should have just created the missing generic AR-15 page.  Regardless, now that we have a generic AR-15 page, general discussions should go there.  This article should only feature information that is specific to the Colt models. Springee (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * K.e.coffman was cherry picking info to make his case...AR-15 variant became the generic AR-15 page. That page was a mess, anyone reading would assume that ALL AR-15s were machineguns. It was eventually cleaned-up by Limpcash, but it end up mirroring the Modern sporting rifle page. So, it was decided that we should use the "MSR" page as the generic AR-15 page and "AR-15 variant" page was returned to a redirect to the List of Colt AR-15 & M16 rifle variants (its original purpose) . This was done because "MSR" is a recognized term for these rifles with many reliably sourced references. While "AR-15 variant" was use as the term for generic AR-15 because nobody knew what else to call it.--RAF910 (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a misrepresentation of the August 2016 discussion The original article as of August 2016 was not about a "generic" AR-15 but rather about the original ArmaLite + the subsequent Colt designs - the lead explicitly stated Other manufacturers make AR-15 clones and variants marketed under separate designations, although these are frequently referred to as AR-15s. This article discusses the original design as well as variants intended for both military and civilian users.. What was split in August 2016 were the ArmaLite AR-15 and Colt AR-15 articles - non AramLite/Colt were not in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice
An RfC related to this topic has been opened at Village pump (policy). –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion notification
I have created an RFD for some redirects currently aimed at this article. It can be found at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24. Please note that I have no opinion on this issue. Thanks, Dekimasu よ! 21:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI I have closed the RfD. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 22:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You wouldn't have an article about the Ford Bronco without mentioning O.J. Simpson
So why do we refuse to mention the high profile shootings performed with this rifle? Nobody blames Ford for making the Bronco, but it's still relevant as one of the highest profile uses of the vehicle. Likewise, regardless of whether you blame gun manufacturers for mass shootings, these are the highest profile instances where the Wikipedia-reading public is exposed to the Colt AR-15. 98.229.65.91 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The info that you added has been repeatedly rejected by your fellow editors. It was also factually wrong. The Colt AR-15 was not used in those shootings.--RAF910 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bronco Opposers would probably suggest that there may have been a slight motor modification to the said Bronco, rendering it not an offical Bronco and therefore it's page may not include the O.J. Simpson case. It comes down to trying to be exteremely specific, if you're lost for a real reason to deny an edit and calling it factual. The masses visiting this page however, do not care for that level of detail. If it would be important to some, a disclaimer about the differences would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpy dimpy (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The masses visiting the page was because the redirects were screwy, with AR-15 going here instead of the AR-15 style rifle. Your comparison with motor is also incorrect, it would be closer to if another company made a clone of the bronco without permission from Ford. Since the Colt AR-15 was not used, this would not be the right article. For example we cover the Port Arthur Massacre here because that was a Colt. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, OJ Simpson probably shouldn't be included in the Bronco article as, relatively speaking, the OJ Simpson incident is still little more than a footnote in the history of that vehicle. Including that in the Bronco article adds undue weight to the role of that incident in the history of the Ford Bronco, and a simple reference to the Bronco used within any articles about OJ Simpson or this specific incident, and a link from those articles to the Ford Bronco page, would do a far better job of maintaining appropriate weight while including easily accessed information for people searching for this info. A specific article on the white Ford Bronco in question would make more sense than including this information in the general Ford Bronco section. The same logic applies here including the idea of not adding undue weight by covering footnotes in articles that cover years and millions of vehicles worth of information.Syr74 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Port Arthur Massacre
Why is there a section about the Port Arthur Massacre? I understand that the pages related to the AR-15s have been the topic of strong feelings and intense debate, but it seems strange to include this one tragedy in the article. Was this the only mass shooting where a Colt brand AR-15 was used? Is (are) the author(s) trying to make a point about gun control? It just seems odd. There are already other pages that discuss the AR-15 and its use by mass murders. I'm just curious what the reasoning was is all. ForeverZero (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Main reason justifying inclusion would be the fact that the massacre led to a significant law Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the section be renamed to something more general like "Use in mass shooting" --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The section is about that specific incident. Not general mass shootings and only that one because that is one of the only notable ones that directly involved the Colt version. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what ForeverZero mentioned above and add to it; why is there currently a section about the Port Author Massacre since we obviously do not have editor consensus regarding inclusion of the same? In fact, the number of editors who oppose the inclusion of the Port Author massacre within this article dramatically outweighs support for the same here, so why is this section still included? If there is something I am missing regarding support I cannot see I'm glad to listen to it, but right now it looks like we have editor consensus to remove this but it remains in this article? Syr74 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that one is special because of WP:WikiProject_Firearms, which is about the only mass shooting that does focus on the specific make and model and had an impact on gun laws in that country. PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Syr74 we have a overwhelming consensus on multiple concurrent discussions to remove the Port Author Massacre content. It should be removed immediately. Also, I should point out PackMecEng has repeatedly rejected WP:WikiProject_Firearms in favor of local consensus, on multiple talk pages claiming that it violates multiple WIKI polices. Therefore, I find it ironic that he supports said section now. --RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I oppose the removal, and do not recognize the Project Firearms piece as anything more than someone's essay, and one that appears to be in conflict with core policy. As such, it's not binding, and probably should be an MfD target in the near future. Geogene (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think that essay is not the best answer, but in this situation it addresses directly the concern of the section. I oppose general "mass shooting" sections being plastered in every dang article which was previously the goal on certain editors. But in this specific situation it deals with the Colt alone which caused a major impact for that country. Which I have been consistent on throughout this article, the general AR article and the RFC. Heck look at my talk page recently, according to some I am a pro gun/NRA tendentious editor POV pusher crap. But that incident was significant to the Colt AR-15 and the one sentence pointing to the main article for that incident seems appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree and oppose in this instance because this incident was only significant with regard to the Colt AR-15 family of rifles within Australia itself, and Australia was relatively insignificant to both Colt and the AR-15 even prior to the massacre or the legal aftermath that followed. The vast majority of Colt AR-15 rifles are sold within the United States and both the rifle and American owners were hardly, if at all, effected by that event. If a Chevy Tahoe rolls over due to a tire defect on the Isle of Man and causes legislation in that country that restricts the type of tires that can be used on suv's would we realistically include that in the Chevy Tahoe article? Probably not, because the incident had virtually no effect on the vehicle overall or any of the areas where the vast majority of those vehicles actually are. Does it deserve it's own article with a link? Maybe. The Port Author massacre deserves an article and has one, it also has a significant section in the Australian gun control article, but the event itself did not have a significant effect on the overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners, the country within which the vast majority of those AR-15 owners reside, or the manufacturer itself. As such, I don't see how we can legitimately argue for the inclusion of the same as anything more than a 'see also'. It just doesn't warrant inclusion here.Syr74 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, that it was a localized incident that in the long view did not substantially affect Colt itself. But I would argue the gun ban in Australia, was a big deal regardless of Colt. Something still brought up to this day as a supposed model the USA should follow, even if it is completely unrealistic for here. It was also pretty much the only event that the specific model of AR was something significant, the country of origin does not really matter in this situation other than it is a large, western, and well developed country. To go back to the car example you used, take a look at the Ford Bronco article and it's mention of OJ Simpson. I have not looked at the history of that article but I would imagine similar arguments have been made there as well. I will say I am not sure it should have it's own section heading, but other than the history section I am not sure where it would go. Are you suggesting that perhaps in the shooting specific article that it just link here from there and no mention here? PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a see also here would be fine but, outside of this, I don't think it warrants a mention here. I mentioned below in response to another editor that the Colt AR-15 was critically influential in the development of the 5.56 NATO and derived .223 Remington cartridges and their subsequent existence in any meaningful way, if at all, as mainstream market and military offerings, but that part of Colt AR-15 history doesn't have a sub-section here. The cartridges get a simple mention as the rounds the AR-15 is chambered for, some minor details about the same, and then the article moves on. Arguably there is less information about those cartridges than there is about the Port Author Massacre, and I think this shows just how much undue weight applies to Port Author here. The significance 5.56 NATO has had globally could be talked about 500 years from now with some regularity in history books, literally. This is the standard NATO cartridge, it has been for decades, and it has fought in countless wars on every Continent. The number of deaths that cartridge has cause unquestionable number in the millions, but it doesn't even get a blurb regarding the significance of the AR-15 in the development of the same within this article. Why? Because it shouldn't....a link to a 5.56/.223 article that does contain that info will do. As tragic as Port Author was there are more significant items that aren't included in this article as a sub-section, and for good reason including readability, Port Author shouldn't have one either. Syr74 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with PackMecEng. This is actually one of the frustrations I think many have with gun articles.  The crime may be significant but is it significant with respect to or in context of the gun?  I recently gave an example of the Chevy Caprice and it's use in the DC sniper attacks.  A well subscribed RfC said no, the crime shouldn't be part of the car's page [].  Interestingly the Bushmaster page does contain a link to the gun's use in that crime.  It's interesting and perhaps logically confused that consensus was strongly against discussing the crime in the car article but the same isn't true for the associated gun.  Springee (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
Add this sentence on the Colt AR-15 page on the header

The Colt AR-15 and similar rifles are one of the most popular civilian rifles in the United States
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018
This article states that the AR-15 is a variant of the M16, while the opposite is actually true. The M16 is actually the military AR-15 adaptation. W EXPRESS TRAIN (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential RfC on Port Arthur Massacre
Regarding this removal,, should this content be presented to the editor community as a formal RfC? The local consensus is unconvincing. The content is reliably sourced, and I don't see an oppose rationale, except a (nonbinding) essay at Project Firearms. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We have already had 3 Rfc on the Port Arthur Massacre, mass shootings and criminal use on this very talk page over the last two months. Your fellow editors have rejected the content with overwhelming consensus. Please read Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--RAF910 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There wasn't enough participation for any of those to be meaningful. Most of the !votes were IDONTLIKEIT from project firearms regulars, most of which appear to violate core policy in favor of local consensus. The point of an RfC is to get widespread participation from a cross section of editors. Geogene (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that a source is well-referenced doesn't make it pertinent to this article. The event occurred, I've seen nobody dispute that as yet, it simply doesn't warrant an actual section within this specific article. This is so because the significance of the event is found within the event itself and what that event led to in terms of firearms law within Australia, and as such is appropriate within articles that cover those issues, the Port Arthur Massacre and Australian gun control laws, and it should be noted that the event is already fully covered by inclusion within the same. To include that event in detail within both of those pages, and then here again as well, adds undue weight to the event with regard to how it influences the Colt branded AR-15 family as a whole. For example, the vast majority of American Colt AR-15 owners, which by far constitutes the vast majority of Colt AR-15 owners globally, most likely don't even know what Port Arthur actually is and the Port Author massacre had little to no real affect on their lives or the production, sale, and ownership of these weapons outside of Australia. To attempt to include that, as an actual article sub-section, in all three articles adds undue weight to this event and could give readers the impression that there is an agenda, or even a lack of good faith, in editing these articles. None of us can decide that we don't like editorial consensus based on what we personally believe, we have to respect the community and, if anyone feels that there is an issue with that process, take appropriate action to get that situation reviewed and, if necessary, resolved. I personally think that the argument that there wasn't enough participation in that referendum is inaccurate, since that issue had more votes than prior issues regarding this page did. As such, I would suggest that those changes either need to be made in accordance with the overwhelming percentage of editors who did vote, or submitted for reviewSyr74 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more with the assertion that Australia is irrelevant and only America matters, and I think that that is a good example of why there should be a referendum on this that's broader than the regular firearms editors. Also, it's kind of interesting that you wrote this: could give readers the impression that there is an agenda, or even a lack of good faith, in editing these articles. If you're worried about the appearance of bad faith agenda pushing, you should read this, this , this , and this . There is no evidence that mentioning mass shootings would discredit this article, that's just speculation on your part, but there are already several published criticisms of this article in reliable sources that cite it as an example of bad faith editing because we don't mention mass shootings. Geogene (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Who said that Australia doesn't matter? I said that Australia is not now and never was a significant market for the AR-15 which is factual, and as such events which led to changes to the legality of semi-automatic rifles in that locality are not significant enough in the history of the AR-15 rifle overall to warrant inclusion as a sub-section here when there are at least two other areas where this is covered in detail. That's an accurate statement. I'm not worried about the inclusion of mass shooting discrediting anything here or elsewhere, there are plenty of articles that either focus on the same, mention the same, and which include the role the AR-15 has played in the same. As an internet reference we need to present complete, balanced, and easy to read information to people who visit the site, and including a sub-section in every article that might apply is only going to serve to create clutter and add undue weight. The event simply isn't significant enough to the history of the AR-15 as a whole to warrant inclusion here, not when there is a detailed article about the Port Author Massacre and a detailed sub-section within the history of Australian gun control. Genuinely, I don't think this is an appropriate place for this sub-section when a link would do the job and, realistically, prevent nobody from accessing the information which you are concerned about easily and readily. On the contrary, I believe inclusion here as a sub-section could, and likely will, give many readers the impression that an agenda is being pushed whether that is the intent or not, and for a wiki that is problematic. As such I'm recommending the section be deleted and a 'see also' be used to allow people to link to the Port Author Massacre article based upon existing editorial consensus. If you disagree with the current editorial consensus then I think this is a good topic within which to consider requesting some level of mediation for. Syr74 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * After further reviewing the article I think the role the AR-15 played in the acceptance of the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington round, and the very small amount of information regarding the same within this article, makes the argument here better than I can. Put simply, without Colt purchasing the AR-15 design from Armalite, refining it greatly, and then getting that design accepted by the US military the 5.56 NATO cartridge never reaches anything like the significance it currently has at best, and potentially has faded into obscurity now at worst. Why isn't this covered within this article in some detail? Realistically it isn't covered as I described it at all and 5.56 NATO is mentioned more or less as the cartridge this rifle is chambered for and little else. The Colt AR-15 is directly responsible for the 5.56 NATO round and, thereby, everything that cartridge has wrought. How many Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghani people were killed by that cartridge? And keep in mind yet again that this cartridge likely wouldn't exist in any meaningful way if at all by this point were it not for the Colt AR-15. The significance there is beyond dispute, without question it *far exceeds the significance the Port Author massacre plays in the history of the AR-15, but it isn't in here..why? You simply cannot cram every piece of significant information into one article as a sub-section, it just wouldn't be readable, and as such links and 'see also' sections were invented to solve that problem. I suggest we use them here. Syr74 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly short article that would benefit from expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 00:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I wouldn't add an in-depth accounting of 5.56 development even as significant as it is. This article does need expansion, and there is plenty of information out there to do so, but you could turn this article into a novel with information that is directly relevant to the Colt AR-15, adding a lot of detail about the 5.56 NATO cartridge and the Port Author massacre when those can be explained better elsewhere and linked would, IMO, make things overly complicated. Explaining those issues in their respective articles and then linking to and from this one would leave everything simpler and more easily legible. Syr74 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support opening a well-publicized RfC to gain wider community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - didn't we just have an RfC about this? One with "community-wide" input? The notice for it is still on this page, just 6 sections above. It's still pending closure, so shouldn't we wait for the outcome of that one, before starting another one and re-doing everything all over again? jahq - the WOLF  child  02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it'd be best to have an RFC, since otherwise this appears unlikely to be settled. But that should probably wait until the Village Pump RFC is closed, since that one will determine the general guidelines of this RFC. For example, if it finishes with "no, mass shootings should never be mentioned" or "yes, mass shootings should always be mentioned" then an RFC here will be unnecessary. My expectation is that the other RFC will end with some recommendation of taking a case-by-case approach based on individual articles, and then we will have to have an RFC here, but we shouldn't start one yet because the guidance or policy determination there will have a big impact on how this RFC should be written (and any policy changes might affect how people want to vote). In the meantime, the consensus on this page is clearly against inclusion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit Never mind, the RFC has been closed, with the conclusion that this should be determined on a case-by-case basis, so it makes sense to have an RFC here to settle this issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE... We have already had THREE RFCs on this very subject. The overwhelming consensus opposed inclusion of the Port Arthur Massacre. ONE (see above sections) has time out, but has yet to be closed, and it also has overwhelming consensus opposing inclusion. We don't have one RFC after another, after another until the "right side" wins. This by definition tendentious editing. Enough is Enough drop the stick--RAF910 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So correct me if I'm wrong, but I went back and looked at when these recent surveys were posted, and none had any kind of RFC tag. To the extent that there's a difference between a talk page survey on the one hand and a formal RFC on the other, they weren't RFCs. Which discussion above "timed out"? Were any of them logged as RFCs and publicized as such? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, consensus is not established solely by RfCs, it can be established with any talk page discussion. You can attempt to gauge consensus on just about anything at anytime, just by posting a question or a suggestion, and evaluating the responses you get, (or you can ask for a straw poll). But in this case, has a point; if there is a recent and clear consensus on this matter already, then it would be disruptive to try re-estaish another one so soon, just to try and get a different outcome. - the WOLF  child  17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , Where are the RfCs you've been talking about? You say there are three of them. Where are the other two? Geogene (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but, why are you asking me this? - the WOLF  child  03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it looks like there might not have been three RfCs, in spite of RAF910 has been claiming, and it looks like your remarks at 17:54, 4 April are a tacit recognition of that. Geogene (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Just how "tacit" can my "remarks at 17:54, 4 April" be when I used the word "if"...? As in; 'if' you want to know where the RfCs that RAF910 mentioned are, then ask . There is nothing in my comments that indicates I have any knowledge of these RfCs, such as where they might be found, how many there are, when they took place, what their outcomes were or if they even exist in the first place. And I don't appreciate the innuendo. - the WOLF  child  06:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: I found one discussion in the archives: Talk:Colt_AR-15/Archive_2. Two editors supported the inclusion, while three (all WP:GUNS members) stricken upon request opposed. This appears to be an attempt to enforce local consensus of the (now deprecated) "Criminal use" provision of WP:GUNS, which has been modified following the recent RfC at VPP. I see automotive RfCs cited in this discussion, while gun use RfCs seem to be more relevant:
 * Talk:Ruger_Mini-14 -- the consensus was to "include".
 * Talk:SIG_MCX/Archive_1 -- the consensus was to "include".
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "...while three (all WP:GUNS members) opposed." - I would ask that you strike that part of your post. It lends nothing materially to formation of consensus or even this discussion. It's basically labeling them as "pro-gun" and unwilling to be neutral and reasoned with their input. If we learned anything from that latest AE report, it's that casting aspersions is not acceptable. You already did this to me, calling me "a WP:GUNS member" when in fact I never was, but I was labeled "pro-gun" after that anyway. Lets stick to content instead contributors, ok? Thanks - the WOLF  child  02:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * {ec}For what it's worth I wouldn't consider the Mini-14 RfC a strong precident. It was a very close RfC., the closing editor, said policy based arguments were made on both sides but felt the include side made the more compelling argument. Since that RfC MrX has participated in many of these discussions and has shown a clear preference in these discussions. I do not wish to reopen that RfC but I think there is firm grounds for a challenge based edit record of MrX since that closing. NOTE: I believe MrX provided what they felt to be an honest closing and this is in no way meant to impute their edits etc. Springee (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Those articles merely serve to prove the point. Both of those shootings took place in what is, by far, the largest market for those firearms and those incidents directly affected the companies that build those weapons, those which produce the ammunition for them, the law enforcement community in those areas, and the owners of the same. Even more, the incidents in question are well know to the general public in that same primary market. The vast majority of people who are in a market/part of the world where the Mini-14 or SiG_MCX are reasonably well known or likely to be encountered, which happens to be the United States, are undoubtedly more familiar with the FBI shootout and the Orlando shooting in general than with the Port Author shooting. And for that reason that information should be, and is, included within those articles. It's also likely that the overwhelming majority of people in the market that the AR-15 is primarily marketed to don't know what Port Author actually is, and are all but if not completely unaffected by the Australian gun control laws which that incident led to. Consensus is to handle these issues on a case by case basis for a reason, and we are seeing that reason right now. The information in question is very important, but information being important does not mean that it needs to be included in every single article where somebody might potentially look for it. If that were to become the case Wikipedia would become illegible by the morning. I think that the question that we need to address here is, are we trying to provide the likely majority of the audience for this article with the information that they are looking for, or are we going to integrate information that they most likely aren't looking for here because we think that they need to know it? Information which is, I might add, already very well covered in articles where people are most likely to search for it. The mission of Wikipedia is, to my understanding, the former and not the latter. Syr74 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a classic "moving the goalposts" argument. The oft-cited essay recommends that a mass shooting meet "some criteria, for instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage." Now you are suggesting that the legislation must be well-known by owners of that weapon in its largest market. What specific criteria are you advocating? –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RELNOT I've said it already, I just didn't provide the link. The topic at hand has to be more than simply important and related to the subject to warrant inclusion within a specific article, it has to be relevant to the readership of that article. The easiest and only realistic way to calculate such a number is to compare familiarity with the rifle, and this specific brand, by where this rifle exists, in what numbers, and by whom it is used. The entire centerfire semi-auto percentage of weapons turned in during the initial Australian buy-back period post Port Author gives us a little over 6,000 pieces total. Of those only a modest percentage are going to be AR-pattern rifles and of that percentage an even smaller number are going to have been manufactured by Colt. To put that into perspective Colt will sell over 20,000 AR-pattern rifles privately in the US alone this year, and they aren't the largest civilian manufacturer of this type of rifle. Over time we are talking about several hundred thousand potential readers via private ownership in the US, every Marine and Army soldier who ever shot a rifle in basic training over the last 50 years within the US, the soldiers in the more than ten other countries that utilize the Colt AR-15/M4 family of weapon as their primary rifle besides the US. Were literally discussing adding an entire sub-section for what is likely an audience of a few thousand people from the Pacific Rim region in an article where the total likely readership is in the tens of millions. By far, the majority of people who are likely to be interested in this article are also likely to be completely unfamiliar with Port Author, and that means it isn't relevant to the readership of this article. Syr74 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic at hand has to be more than simply important and related to the subject to warrant inclusion within a specific article, it has to be relevant to the readership of that article. There is no such policy. You made that up. Geogene (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy at hand is weight and in this case the question is what establishes it in context of this article. In general, since articles about the gun don't discuss the shooting it's reasonable to say leave it out.  I personally think we should stick with the long standing project page suggestion which would suggest inclusion based on the significance of the crime with respect to legal changes in Australia. Springee (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Georgene, did you read the information in the link I posted above regarding what relevance is not? My argument is clearly cited under 'confusing relevance with importance'. The article states that 'the issue must be about the topic of the article and must be important in the eyes of the reader'. There really isn't any getting around the latter portion of that statement, it must be important in the eyes of the reader. The burden of proof here is then going to fall upon the people arguing for inclusion to prove that the millions of private Colt AR-15 owners and military veterans with direct experience with the AR-15 who live outside of Australia are reasonably familiar with this information as a group and find it important since so few of either of those groups are from Australia or a neighboring state. (the Colt AR-15 is not a standard issue service rifle in Australia and, as such, only the relatively small number of special forces troops in that state have experience with the weapons) That you think it is important, or that you think people need to know, are both insufficient reasons to include this information within this article as is clearly covered at WP:RELNOT. Are you suggesting that we should just ignore this official Wikipedia guideline about what relevance is and is not? Correction, this is an essay and not an official Wikipedia guideline, but I'll still stand behind the assertion that the issue needs to be relevant to the readership as a whole to warrant inclusion, and this just isn't. Correction, this is an essay, not a guideline. I'll still stand by the argument that it has to be important to the readers of the article or it doesn't warrant inclusion. Syr74 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Syr74, I agree with the general thrust of the WP:RELNOT essay but I can see some issues with the specifics. However, we need to be careful about "important in the eyes of the reader". This is a politically charged topic and quite a number of readers may only care about the gun crime/gun control angle. So while I might say "did the crime have an impact on the gun" other editors may say the only thing significant about the civilian version of this gun is the harm/crimes committed with it. Springee (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you arrived at your audience estimate of "a few thousand people in the Pacific Rim." Readers have a wide range of interests and experiences. I would argue that most Australians would be interested in their country's gun control history, and the fact that they may not be the largest audience does not justify removing content from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I estimated based on one of the only two real criteria we have, the percentage/number of people you might expect to have direct contact, or the possibility of direct contact, with a Colt manufactured AR-15. The rifle in question was extraordinarily rare in Australia prior to modern Australian gun control laws, it is all but non existent now. In other locales, like the United States and the Middle East, it isn't absurd to assume that a number approaching half of adults have some direct experience with these rifles. I agree that Australians will be interested in their gun control history in general, I just don't know why anybody would think that they would begin that search at an article about a specific rifle rather than in the far more likely Australian Gun Control and Port Author articles which already exist. WP:OFFTOPIC This link covers it best in my opinion and reinforces what I was saying earlier better than the 'not related' link did. 'If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain redundant passages of this kind. Please be bold in merging these passages.' The Port Author massacre is related to the topic covered by the Colt AR-15 article but it most definitely is not the topic covered by that article and it isn't a topic that is especially relevant to the majority of likely readers. Rather, it's a related topic that is very important to a small subset of readers. So, rather than make the majority of readers trudge through a section they didn't arrive at the article in question to see anyway, why not just provide a link and a 'see also' to the better articles where they are likely to end up anyway? Syr74 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that in-depth coverage is more suited to an article about the massacre, however it is important to give the reader some context instead of providing a "See also" link with no explanation. The single sentence about the massacre provides a very succinct explanation. –dlthewave ☎ 01:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree in this instance as, anybody who needs an explanation to figure out what the 'see also' link is for is more than likely not looking for gun control information in the first place. To my eye it doesn't improve the article, potentially adds a great deal of undue weight to the event with regard to the significance it had on both the rifle and the manufacturer, and likely serves to distract from the primary content of the article for the majority of likely readers. Syr74 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The rifle and its manufacturer have had a great deal of influence on national gun control policy in at least two different countries, and a lot has been published about that. This is the only meaningful relevance that the rifle has outside of the gun enthusiast subculture. Except for patents, a lot more has been written about the Port Arthur massacre in scholarly journals than has been written about the AR-15 in its totality. Look at the pitiful sourcing in this article. So little has been published about the gun itself that you're citing your history to books from Prepper Press. Geogene (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Geogene, your argument is fallacious. The Colt AR-15 is a tool intended for a purpose; and as such is most likely to be found in scholarly articles that discuss the purpose for which the tool was created rather than simply focusing on the tool itself. In similar fashion I would expect that there are a lot of scholarly articles regarding what hammers are used for, but a substantially lesser if still significant number about the hammer specifically. That said, I would still venture a guess that there are at least as many scholarly articles about the Colt AR-15 as there are about Port Author in general if not more, primarily because so much written about Port Author isn't going to be genuinely scholarly in nature but overtly popular by way of obvious political slant and intent. In contrast, the number of scholarly articles within which the AR-15 features prominently, and which focus on the actual purpose the AR-15 was designed for, unquestionably dwarf the number of the same written about Port Author. The reason for this is simple, as the Colt AR-15 will figure prominently in any scholarly article about the majority of conflicts since Vietnam which deals with strategy, tactics, or equipment, most articles covering the same items as it relates to defense and police procurement, virtually all articles discussing second amendment rights which cover weapons in any significant way.....the list could keep going on to the point that it is inappropriate. In fact, I think your point here serves more to undermine your argument than not, as any review of scholarly articles that feature the AR-15 prominently is going to highlight Port Author as a footnote and the focus, intent, and overwhelming use of the weapon as something else. Which leaves us right back at the inclusion of Port Author causing a problem with weight here. Syr74 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know it isn't fallacious, because I had a look. The search term "ar-15" rifle in Google Scholar generates almost nothing except patents. Switch patents off, and you get mostly commentary on gun control. There's some stuff about noise safety and an ergonomics paper too. Geogene (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

✅ –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number of books on the subject but they often aren't scholarly nor does Google Book show much in the way of content. Wikipedia sourcing is often what we can find on line which makes for a bit of an inherent limitation.  A subject that is well sourced in the paper book world would require trips to physical libraries.  I find scholarly works good for some subject but not so much for others. (edit):I was curious so I did a Google news search for "Port Arthur Massacrer" and got 7440 hits.  When I added "Colt AR-15" to the search the number was reduced to 74.  That's 1% of articles discussing the topic including mention of the gun used.  By normal standards of weight this would be very low.  Below I'm supporting the inclusion based on the significance and in accordance with project firearms/crime recommendations.  Based on weight I think a strong case for exclusion can be made. Springee (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Geogene, there is some irony here in that a Google search for actual, scholastic material wouldn't actually satisfy the scholastic method since neither a Google search for information, or Wikipedia for that matter, are typically considered acceptable. Put more simply, your findings as presented would be rejected by the vast majority of scholars based strictly on method, and this is so for a reason. Syr74 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

5.56 NATO cartridge
An editor has suggested adding information about the 5.56 NATO cartridge. This seems like an appropriate way to expand the article, if reliable sources support the significance of the cartridge in relation to the gun. Feel free to WP:BOLDLY add a section or propose an edit here. –dlthewave ☎ 00:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that I'm likely the editor being quoted as suggesting this here and, actually, I don't suggest it at all. In fact, In fact I completely disagree that this needs to be added to this article. If we include everything in this article that is of some significance to the Colt AR-15 family you wouldn't be able to read it. More realistically, the history of 5.56 development needs to be covered within the article that covers that cartridge, a reference citing the relationship between the development of the cartridge and the rifle acknowledged within the article at most, and a link created so as to minimize confusion and make information gathering as simple as possible. Yes, this information would be more relevant to the Colt AR-15 page than is the Port Author Massacre, but it doesn't need to be encapsulated here for the same reason. Syr74 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)