Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15

Recent edit, 2017 RfC
regarding this edit, I believe that the 2018 RfC on inclusion superceded preceding RfCs. Could you advise? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC I think you are referring to said local consensus is the ultimate arbitrageur. The RfC here was not just a few editors so I don't think we can just ignore it.  Do you have a link to the 2018 RfC?  Springee (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is the RfC you are thinking about[] it said the AR-15 article should include mass shootings (and it does). It says other articles are case by case.  Here we have a RfC that had good participation and didn't support inclusion.  Springee (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. M&P15 is an AR-15 style rifle. Are you thinking that the 2018 RfC does not apply here? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The two RfCs are not in conflict with one another. The 2018 RfC you referenced said the AR-15 article should.  The closing contained links to that article so the intended target was clear.  This is not the AR-15 article.  It said other articles should be decided by on a case by case basis.  Inclusion here was decided by a widely attend RfC. Springee (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sample oppose vote: "Oppose - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use, it says it all". This former guidance is no longer valid. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of the "oppose" votes (and, oddly, the closing statement) in the 2017 RfC cite previous talk page discussions which, in turn, refer to the former WP:GUNS guidance as well as other arguments which were rejected by the community in 2018. I do not see any valid prior consensus to exclude criminal use from this article; if there is an objection at this point than it would be appropriate to start a fresh discussion and assess the material on its merits. –dlthewave ☎ 06:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having just reviewed the 2017 closing comments, I don't really agree with your summary. The closing editor says that prior to the RfC there was extensive discussion of the question on the article talk page.  The closing comments didn't reference other RfCs.  The discussion did reference two non-firearms RfCs that involved exclusion of significant crimes from what could be seen as related articles [], []. Springee (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like an attempt to back door inclusion despite the outcome of a recent RFC with sufficient participation. Essentially this would be forum shopping.  I would also note that the WP:firearms guidance didn't change in a way that would invalidate the statement cited nor do we know that the editor would suddenly change their mind off have no other justification.  Again this was not a case of just a few editors or the usual suspects deciding. Springee (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The 2018 RFC here mandated that the AR-15 style rifle article (specifically that article) have a section on it's notable use in mass shootings. After that it was determine whether the use of a particular firearm in mass shootings should be mentioned within the article for that firearm on a case by case basis. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
Propose including the following "criminal use" statement: M&P15 rifles were used in the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack and the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
 * Support as proposer - Criminal use is relevant to the topic and has received prominent RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Forum shopping? Why are you trying to go against the results of a RfC that had input from about two dozen editors?  Springee (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE AGAIN enough with the forum shopping.--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support The use of high-powered rifles in mass shootings is a recent, notable and extensively covered phenomenon of significant public interest. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why should this be reopened? The recent, closed RfC had 24 participants, many not "the usual suspects". Why should we suddenly decide to ignore the previous consensus?  Springee (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * did you just !vote twice? –dlthewave ☎ 17:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Of course this should be included, it is extremely notable and relevant. Furthermore other very recent RfCs have concluded that other gun articles (such as AR-15 style rifle and Colt AR-15) should include the analogous information.  It should be included here too.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read the RfC that people are forum shopping you will see that this exact argument was addressed by several editors. Springee (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please make an effort to be be polite and assume good faith. Thanks in advance.  In fact I did read it, and I didn't see any mention of the Colt AR-15 article.  As a separate point, that discussion was 1.5 years ago.  No reason in the world it can't be revisited now.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (closed RfC)
Dlthewave's posting of this discussion to the project Gun Politics page is improper notification. The subscribed editors are almost exclusively those who have pushed for this sort of content in articles. For what ever reason the members of the RfC Dlthewave is attempting to ignore aren't being notified. This is forum shopping along with improper notification. Springee (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For reference the RFC in question that previously discusscused this here is Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15/Archive 1. PackMecEng (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I saw Dlthewave posted to several noticeboards that might house interested editors, not just the Gun Politics one. And a noticeboard specifically about gun politics would seem quite relevant to this discussion. Perhaps address why there's any good reason to exclude relevant mention of these firearms in notable mass shootings rather than complaining that the discussion is being revisited after a year and some 45 or more deaths in American mass shootings later. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave notified two project pages. The firearms project of course makes sense.  The other was the gun politics project.  That is a project started by Dlthewave with the intent of trying to inject political content into firearms articles.  The project has ten participants who have been active in pushing this type of content into articles.  This is not a long established project or one with wide membership.  This sort of back door canvasing is one of the big concerns I had with the project when Dlthewave set it up a few months back.  Springee (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use
Should the following section be included in the article:

M&P15 rifles were used in the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack and the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

Previous related RfC closed 19 March 2017 is here Talk:Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15/Archive_1 Springee (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Notifications (add to the list as notifications are made): Springee (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Project Politics Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics
 * Project Politics Guns Politics Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics
 * Project Firearms Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms
 * Editors involved with the 2017 RfC - (clarifying statement: This is all editors who participated in the previous RfC survey)

Survey (add three instances of criminal use)

 * OPPOSE AGAIN AND AGAIN --RAF910 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy-based rationale or is it WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Responses that are not supported by our policies and guidelines are unlikely to be factored into the final decision. –dlthewave ☎ 12:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect the reply expresses frustration with the way these same discussions come up again and again. That said, I think it would be helpful if  linked/copied their earlier arguments on the subject since it has been a while since this was last discussed on this page.  Springee (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to "express frustration". –dlthewave ☎ 13:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is basically the exact same question that was asked in 2017 and the list of editors above were basically 50/50 in the end. My reasons now are largely the same as they were then.  This has been discussed repeatedly and rejected for several reasons.  Do we have external articles about the crime that mention the gun or is it articles about the gun mentioning the crime?  We don't have examples of non-wikipediab editors feeling that it was significant to the history of the M&P15 that it was used in X crimes.  The external news articles mention the gun the same way they might mention a fast car in an article about someone driving recklessly fast.  Some wiki articles about guns do mention the crimes committed with said gun.  Per WP:OSE that doesn't mean those pages are correct or good examples.  Conversely, there are examples where consensus has rejected mention of a famous crime in a product article.  Here are three fairly recent RfCs that made it clear that just because item/event A had a notable impact on B (notable in context of event B) that doesn't mean that B is notable in context of A.  We have two examples of vehicles used in highly notable crimes not being included in the vehicle articles Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_45 and an example of a mudslide Talk:2014_Oso_mudslide.  In the automotive cases it was decided it wasn't significant in the Ford truck article to mention that a Ford F700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing.  It was also decided that it wasn't significant in the Chevy Caprice article to mention the DC Area Sniper Attacks.  In the Oso Mudslide case a homicide related to the mudslide was deemed not notable to the mudslide article.  Conversely, in a case where a very specific design feature was critical to a crime then it mention may be justified.  The Boeing 727's rear door was critical to DB Cooper's crime and the door was changed because of it Boeing_727.  OJ Simpson and the white Ford Bronco where the notoriety reaches pop culture status and thus OJ is in the Bronco article.  As editors we really need to distinguish between a case where a car/gun/item was either uniquely critical to a notable event (727 rear door) or via pop culture because inextricably associated (white Bronco) vs a case where the event is notable but items used in the event are not unique and were selected because they were at hand vs uniquely critical.  Notability of A with respect to B doesn't imply a reciprocal relationship.  Springee (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There is no point to listing specific crimes that were committed with a specific model of gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zchrykng (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose - per WP:NPOV, the topic of this article is the gun, I searched Smith & Wesson M&P15 and got zero hits for any of those mass shootings in the first 10 pages of results. In the Aurora shooting and San Bernardino attack articles, the gun is not significantly covered in those articles either. The Marjory Stoneman article does cover it in the political reaction section, but this article is not about political reactions to mass shootings. It would be WP:UNDUE to try and shoehorn that sentence into this article, and guilt by association also comes to mind. (FYI, did not comment at 2017 or '18 RFC's) Isaidnoway  (talk)  09:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not only on this article but also on all other articles about a specific model of firearm. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per NPOV. Sources generally mention the weapon in connection with the shooting, so it should be covered in this article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Oh, thanks zchrykng. I dunno. At some point it starts to feel like WP:TRIVIA. Just a modified "in pop culture" section. I mean, this is AFAIK one of the most popular weapon designs in the world. Sure it makes sense to include the weapon on the article for the event, but visa versa? We have a mass shooting every other week, so it starts to look a little bit like an indiscriminate collection of information. Should we also list mass shootings on 5.56×45mm NATO? Why should that be any different? I mean I get it that if you are super politically concerned about the gun control debate of the moment, then this seems like critical information. I'm not terribly concerned either way about the politics of the matter, so it doesn't really seem all that important from the perspective of a WP:GLOBAL WP:10 year test.  G M G  talk  13:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , that is pretty much my thought. I will admit to being on the "gun rights" side of the political debate, but generally dislike adding trivia to any article. zchrykng (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, I don't really consider myself to be on a side. I'd like for us to find public policy solutions that balance and maximize both individual liberty and public safety to the greatest degree possible. But that's public policy and this is Wikipedia. The accounting that we have to do here in order to determine DUEWEIGHT is not whether the preponderance of sources that deal with the event also deal with the weapon, but whether the preponderance of sources that deal with the weapon also deal with the event. The former is related to DUEWEIGHT for that article, while the latter is related to DUEWEIGHT for this article.  G M G  talk  14:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this were a one-off, I'd see your point. But if a weapon keeps being used in mass shootings. As this one and the various AR-15 weapons have been, it becomes due to mention its frequency of use. This is especially relevant when features of the weapon (modularity, high ammo capacity, long range, etc.) may have contributed to a trend in increased death tolls in mass-shooting events. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it's a one-off or not is irrelevant to WEIGHT. What matters is representing the coverage in equal proportion to the totality of coverage available for a subject. If it was a one-off, but the preponderance of sources dealt with the one-off because it was singularly important in their view, it would still be DUE. The reverse is true also. If you want to make that case, then you need to demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable sources dealing in-depth with the M&P15 also deal with these events, not that coverage dealing in-depth with these events include the M&P15.
 * The same is true of any subject. To take another recent example, you can find plenty of sources related to Donald Trumps penis which also talk about Toad (Nintendo). But as it happens, the preponderance of source that deal with Toad don't feel the need to mention Donald Trump's penis. So if his penis is ever independently notable, it can go in that article, but it isn't DUEWEIGHT on the article on the video game character.  G M G  talk  15:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The "preponderance of sources" standard isn't normally used in this way. For example, many thousands of articles have been written about Donald Trump and many thousands of articles have been written about immigration, and we have an obviously relevant and necessary article on Immigration policy of Donald Trump even though only a tiny fraction of the literature focuses on that topic specifically. Are we also to remove mentions of which police forces use the M&P 15 or the intricacies of specific models and chamberings, since most sources do not mention these specific details? It seems that the standard is only being applied to criminal use. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's talking across purposes a bit with regard to scope. (I'm going to jacked up on coffee one day and make an infographic or something for this.) The scope of Immigration policy of Donald Trump is all sources that deal with "Trump+Immigration" in depth as their main topic, and to the greatest extent possible, mostly disregarding sources that deal primarily with "Trump+other subject" but only mention immigration (specifically for the purpose of gauging WEIGHT).
 * The scope of Donald Trump is all sources dealing with Donald Trump. If we asked the Oracle of Wikipedia and divined that 3.5% of sources dealing primarily with Trump, deal with "Trump+immigration", then about 3.5% of the article on Trump should deal with immigration in a hypothetical perfectly balanced article. For Donald Trump we have to consider the whole for purposes of WEIGHT; for Immigration policy of Donald Trump we're primarily considering the relative weight given to topics within that 3.5% of the whole.
 * But those are clearly hierarchically nested topics where these are not. Every source that deals in-depth with Trump+Immigration is necessarily dealing in depth with both Trump and immigration. Every source dealing with one of these shootings is not a source dealing in depth with this weapon, because they're not hierarchically nested topics. But anyway, I'm getting way off in left field when I need to stop pontificating and go finish sorting images on Commons.  G M G  talk  17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think there's a pretty vast difference. First of all, there's a lot more lasting significance to these firearms that they've become a go-to tool for domestic terrorists than there is of the shape of certain politician's *ahem* toadstool. Secondly, we should consider what Wikipedia editors might expect to find about a subject when searching it. When a gun keeps being used to murder scores of people in terrorist incidents, that's much more relevant information to the firearm than a ding-dong's ding-dong has to a video game character with a shared likeness. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I'm aware, those are not relevant in regard to WP:PG. WEIGHT is determined by the sources, not by readers expectations or by mine or your subjective assessment of the lasting significance of recent events (read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENTISM.  G M G  talk  15:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I hate to invoke WP:IAR I think a rigid assessment of WEIGHT here is actively harmful to the usefulness of this class of articles. The general public is more likely to care about the murder-history of a gun than the design history. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine and all, but that's just your opinion, which doesn't make for a very compelling argument.  G M G  talk  16:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with GMG regarding WEIGHT being established by outside sources about the article subject. I also believe this is where much of the disagreement regarding weight comes in. One camp feels the number of mentions in any source establishes weight in a particular article. This is an understandable position as it does in fact establish weight for mention in at least some article. The other camp feels the context of the mention establishes where weight exists. Thus a mention of the rifle in an article about the crime establishes weight for the mention of the rifle in a wiki article about the crime but there isn't "reciprocity of weight". So only articles about the rifle that mention the crime establish weight in the rifle article. This logic seems controversial in context of firearms but not in other areas of Wikipedia. I've already mentioned the example of the RfC clearly deciding against mentioning the DC Area Sniper Attacks in the Chevy Caprice article. Also consider the famous people. Henry Kissinger is mentioned twice in the Elizabeth Holmes article but the reverse is not true. I'm sure there are many examples of someone who is WP:NOTE due to inspiration, interaction, meeting etc someone else who is famous, say a young, successful actor inspired by an older actor. That means the young actor's page mentions the older actor but not the reverse if the young actor had no influence on the path of the elder. Again, the question of "reciprocity of weight" Springee (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason why sources that deal in depth with the guns themselves don't talk about mass shootings is because gun magazines know that it's bad for business, and sources exist that document this bias, which comes about largely because gun magazines are not sufficiently independent from the gun industry. So whenever you have an article like this one that is sourced almost entirely to things like Pew Pew Tactical and Shooting Illustrated, there's a good chance that that article is already tilted toward the gun rights POV through omission. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use sources like these, they're good for describing how the gun works and its operation, but sources like that tend not to cover the full extent of that gun's significance. Saying that an article shouldn't mention a mass shooting simply because Guns & Ammo or some magazine like it covered the operation and/or the aftermarket accessorizing of a gun exhaustively and yet still failed to mention its use in crime is POV, since we already know that some sources simply will not talk about certain things, and we know why. You shouldn't try to rely on sources like that to determine weight. Geogene (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Therefore, by your own augment, since the vast majority of "reliable sources" only refer to the guns used in these shootings as "AR-15's," and very rarely refer to them by their specific Make and Model number. This information only adds to the notability of the general class of "AR-15 style rifles" and not to any specific Make and Model. Therefore, this info does not belong here. It belongs of the "AR-15 style rifles" page. To illustrate my point, a simple Google search for "S&W MP-15" went 18 pages and no mention that it was used in any crimes or shooting. --RAF910 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I found this on page 6 of the Google search results and this on page 10. None of the results mentioned police use; I presume you would support removing the "official users" section? –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * While I don't consider this a legitimate RfC due to the significant pinging of individual editors that was included in its formation, I do support the inclusion of reliable, sustained interest about a product which is of public interest. The use of high-powered rifles in significant mass shooting events meets those criteria; as such I would argue the WP:NPOV claims are laughable at best. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of editors is all editors who participated in the previous RfC survey regardless of how they voted. See my additional comments below. Springee (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Of course the article should include a mention of these mass shootings. They are one of the most notable and important -- arguably the most notable and important -- facts about this gun.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support When these weapons have been used several times in mass shootings they should be included in this article. It does not require a full multi paragraph addition. But should be included as it is more than notable, well referenced, and correct to include. ContentEditman (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant in terms of any impacts on changes in laws.  By weight, therefore, there is no reason to include this information.  WP is not meant to collect trivia facts in articles.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A change in law is not a requirement to meet WP:WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 20:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really relevant, the M&P15 is a weapon no need to list every event it has ever been used and choosing just a few specific events just looks weird and offends WP:WEIGHT. And why list just mass shootings it presumes that it is the prime purpose of the weapon. The exact type of weapon has really very little relevance to the events. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still WP:SYNTH and WP:OFFTOPIC. This article is about the rifle. A cite about the San Bernardino attack belongs in the San Bernardino attack article — not here.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support addition: per WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * DUE speaks to weight which is discussed above. NOTCENSORED doesn't really apply since this isn't a question of this material appearing in Wikipedia.  Instead it's a question of inclusion in this specific article this not a censored question. Springee (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just don't see any encyclopedic value of adding such WP:TRIVIA, same reason I wouldn't add the fact that certain Ford F-series truck was used for Oklahoma City Bombing to any articles about this model of the truck.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:Not a forum WP:Not a soap box J8079s (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (add three instances of criminal use)

 * Can you say canvas Sorry but pinging a whole list of people you expect to oppose into an RFC to try and prevent an inclusion in an article is not good practice. I mean didn't you recently call it canvassing to ping a wikiproject you considered hostile?!?!?? This is a malformed RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, pinging editors from previous discussions is not unheard of but it's also not something that is done routinely without a specific reason. In this case is certainly appears to be for the purpose of canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of editors are about 50/50 for/against inclusion (please review the previous RfC if you wish to verify that claim). They are the editors who opined on the subject as part of the 2017 RfC and notification of the associated projects. This is considered appropriate notification. "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" Canvassing. The specific reason is that the proposed text is nearly identical to the text discussed in the 2017 RfC.  Since this discussion will effectively replace the previous consensus it is reasonable to ping the previous editors.   Springee (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , only person you missed is (they took part under a different name), at least as far as I can tell with a quick regex check. zchrykng (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What about, , and  who discussed the content last week? –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * People who have been active on this article within the past week ought to be aware of what happens here anyway, the users who were pinged were also, as usual, only the ones who !voted in the last RfC, making your pings more of a canvassing attempt than the pings at the start of this RfC... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , who was GreenMeansGo? I think I got every editor who replied to the survey section. I didn't ping the closing editor and didn't check to see if the discussion included editors outside of those from the survey. dlthewave, why would I notify editors who are currently active in the discussion? Springee (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * GMG was User:Timothyjosephwood PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , what said. I just took the entire section and extracted the user names. Wasn't paying attention to who voted one way or the other was in which section. zchrykng (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC); Edited 14:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I only pinged the editors who replied to the survey section.  Springee (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (For what it’s worth, I did not see a ping, I saw this in RFC/A, same as last time.) This RFC did note the existence of prior RFC, but should have taken note of Consensus AGAINST and then RFC STRONG CONSENSUS AGAINST.  Instead this looks like just asking the same thing again, it has not made any substantive change in response to the substantial arguments against, or shown any new rationale.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to weigh in but I want to see examples of how reliable sources handle this information. How many sources say the M&P15 was used in these shootings, one or two or a whole bunch? How many of these sources mention the M&P15 in passing versus discussing it at length? How many reliable sources discuss the use of the M&P15 across multiple shootings? Please ping me as I will not be watching this page. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Criminal Use
If there is a potential for non-neutral implications to be added to the article by mentioning criminal use of the rifle, how come the wikipedia page for the Ruger Mini-14 has a detailed itinerary of crimes committed with it? Just curious. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The mini-14 crime section is out of control. The RfC that created it only included two crimes.  The list has since turned into a dumping ground with many UNDUE examples.  Actually, depending on how one reads WEIGHT, it's possible all are undue.  While sometimes other pages can be used as examples, per WP:OSE, we shouldn't assume that just because one page does the others should.  Since this content was specifically discussed in a recent RfC it should not be added without consensus.  Springee (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mini-14 article is an example of why this article has been monitored closely. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

S&W AR15 usage
This firearm is currently in use by the Kentucky State Police and issued to patrol and other officers. 129.222.32.206 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)