---

Should the Port Arthur Massacre be mentioned in this article? – dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The following section was recently challenged:

Survey options

• Support - Include the Port Arthur Massacre. Please specify whether you support the text as written, a different version or something else such as a "See also" link.
• Oppose - Do not mention the Port Arthur Massacre at all.

Straw Poll

• Oppose - Do not mention the Port Arthur Massacre at all... Not this again. For all the reasons stated in previous discussions. -- RAF910 ( talk) 05:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

"Not this again." That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments. Sounds much like "I don't like it." Please elaborate. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I think "please elaborate" is sufficient, no? There's no need for insults. - ^theWOLFchild 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

As someone who experienced some personal impact from the Port Arthur Massacre, I felt insulted by someone implying it wasn't important, with no better explanation than "Not this again." HiLo48 ( talk) 08:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

First let me say that, sincerely, that I've persinally seen the tragic effects a mass-shooting has collaterally and I'm sorry that you had to experience that. But you have to know that RAF910, (or I), couldn't have known that, and certainly weren't in any way trying to dismiss your feelings on this. The "Not this again" comment isn't the only explanation, though. If you'd been following this issue, you'd see that RAF910 is coming from a position that this topic has already been discussed, both recently and at length. (I don't know the details, I just seen his other comments). But that aside, we have to try and keep our personal feelings from affecting our editing, hence the reason we have NPOV for articles and NPA for talk pages. I'm sure you agree with that. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 08:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support proposed text as written; no reason to oppose this sourced content. Geogene ( talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support - Per WP:Firearms criminal use this is a significant crime that clearly had an impact on the laws of Australia and on the gun debate in the US. But, I do think a strong case against inclusion can be made because, for all the times I've seen Port Arthur and the subsequent prohibition on semi-automatic rifles mentioned in context of the US gun control debate, I've wasn't even aware that the rifle in question was a Colt AR-15 (or an AR-15 of any type). So in that regard I would say a strong argument can be made that WP:WEIGHT rejects inclusion because, in context of the Colt brand AR-15 the crime seems to have had little to no impact even if the broader impact was VERY significant. Ultimately I'm torn on the matter but feel that this is one of the few cases where the significance of the legal changes after the crime are such that inclusion is warranted. Springee ( talk) 19:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Possibly your unawareness of the brand of the weapon was due to a lack of previous mention. Is that a lack which ought to be fixed? Or is the lack an indication of non-significance? I would argue that being a semiautomatic assualt-style (i.e., "AR-15") model is significant, and warrants mention. But perhaps the brand warrants only a footnote? ♦  J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Supportper Springee. Signficant crime, significant effect on laws, still impacting the debate on the otehr side of the world. Legacypac ( talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose the sources about the shooting only mention the type of rifle in passing, and sources about the rifle do not mention the shooting. The rifle might be notable to the shooting, but I don't think the shooting is notable to the rifle. This is not like the case of US mass shootings in the AR-15 type rifle article, where inclusion is supported by sources discussing in detail how the weapons affect and are affected by the shootings. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 00:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I agree with Red Rock Canyon above; there is good reason to avoid lending undue weight to an event which has had so little effect on the subject of this article. The Colt AR-15 is important to Port Author and as such warrants mention in that article, the reverse is not the case. Syr74 ( talk) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support per Springee. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Red Rock Canyon.note- found about this RfC because of a related AN/I thread.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 07:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support - That an incident involving this model got the whole class banned in Australia seems very much worth mentioning. Support the sentence as previously, plus maybe more. The article lead is too short anyway. Johnbod ( talk) 11:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support This incident was a key element in the development of Australia's gun laws, being used now by many as an example the USA could learn from. Clearly significant. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment #1 - Not all of the "support" !votes have specified; "whether you support the text as written, a different version or something else such as a "See also" link" ...as requested in the RfC OP.
  FYI. - ^theWOLFchild 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support - for the for the text as written and no more. Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC). reply
• Question - where in the listed sources does it say Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine ? The first source lists no model, the second only a Colt AR-15 and the third only an AR-15. Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 02:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC). reply
• Support Gun laws directly involving this gun should be mentioned, such as the U.S. law mentioned in the lede. There should be a section in the article on gun laws relating to AR-15. First Light ( talk) 03:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Gun laws related to the AR-15 doesn't sound like a "Colt AR-15 (TM)" subject but rather something that may be related to AR-15 style rifle which is the article where the general AR-15 type rifle is covered and includes discussions of AR-15's and the media discussions about the rifles after a number of mass shootings. Springee ( talk) 03:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

But a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine was used in the Port Arthur incident, no? A new gun law was passed based on that, no? The massacre should be mentioned here also, imo, not just the new gun law based on it. First Light ( talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support The Port Arthur incident was a key to changing Australia's gun laws. This weapon played a vital role. Clearly significant. CamV8 ( talk) 13:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support of course; significant event and well sourced. Not discussing stuff like this would be like omitting birth defects from the thalidomide article (a drug that is very, very useful) and the way that those birth defects led to changes in federal law about drug testing. Jytdog ( talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - a whole section in AR15 just for this event is going WP:OFFTOPIC with prominence far beyond due WP:WEIGHT. I believe this and similar have had prior discussions which ended with this article should not cover these as part of its content. Note a See Also would not be part of this article so is an 'Oppose' -- but might be allowed by prior discussions. (Prior discussions like this seem to be at recent Village pump RFC, this article Archive 3 twice, and Archive 2 once ?) Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support - clearly significant and well sourced. Boggles the mind how anyone could think a short mention of this highly significant event would be "undue" - that's simply unsupported by policy. Neutrality ^talk 03:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Refer to WP:UNDUE. A zillion articles on AR15 where 99%+ do not even mention this event is how the prominence of a whole section and amount of content here is WP:UNDUE. Even at the article about the event or about the law the gun would get minor or no mention. Markbassett ( talk) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If the gun articles you're talking about are in sporting magazines, then I wouldn't expect them to talk about this, because they're geared toward a specific audience and a very specific subject matter. Guns and Ammo famously dismissed an editor a few years ago for infuriating their readership by writing an editorial in favor of some form of gun regulation [1], which shows that while they are probably reliable for some things, their failure to discuss mass shootings isn't surprising or meaningful. But not everything you'll find written about AR-15s is in sporting magazines. [2] The goal here is to represent all significant points of view found in reliable sources, in proportion to their prevalence. That begins with the gun's history and operation, but it doesn't end there. Geogene ( talk) 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Geogene - no, all sources or specifically BBC.com and WashingtonPost.com have less than 1% of AR15 articles or mentions also mentioning Port Arthur. Even if I allowed Port Arthur Texas. Markbassett ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support Clearly signifiant; proposed text as written; and moving forward, needs appropriate additions, if required. scope_creep ( talk) 10:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support - Looks like the oppose opinion (as expressed by User:Dlohcierekim, User:Syr74 & User:Red Rock Canyon) is that we shouldn't mention the factoid, b/c sources only give the factoid passing mention. It seems to me that the proposed wording is basically "passing mention" to the Port Author Massacre. I don't know why we'd say the AR-15 deserves passing mention in the context of the massacre but not vice versa. The massacre seems like one of the most notable global events that the AR-15 has been involved in. It doesn't seem undue to mention it. NickCT ( talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ User:NickCT My question here would be, if this is obviously important for inclusion within this article because the opposite is true, then why wouldn't scholastically acceptable tomes typically include Port Author under any AR-15 related text but would find it reasonable to include the Colt AR-15 as a component within an entry on the Port Author Massacre itself? The reason is obvious and simple, the subject of the Colt AR-15 article is specifically the AR-15, it should obviously be included within the text of any entries covering the Port Author Massacre as those would be incomplete without it, but including the Port Author Massacre within the Colt AR-15 article is realistically pointless and serves primarily to polarize and give a poor impression of Wikipedia. You don't actually need to include Port Author in the Colt AR-15 article for people to be able to easily find that information, and to do so in every instance where this approach is plausible would and does create duplicity on a scale that is staggering, so why do it? This is a big part of the reason why scholars will never accept Wikipedia as a credible source on the whole as, despite what are generally good intentions, we don't often enough avoid the appearance of bias. Wikipedia is not and never will be Encyclopedia Britannica online, and it shouldn't be, but I had hoped that it would become more scholarly over time and bring truly credible, relevant information to the masses. On the other side of that equation, Wikipedia most definitely should not be a larger, more poorly worded version of tabloid/pop news websites the Mirror either, but it seems as though we are leaning a good deal more toward the tabloid and pop news end of the spectrum than the credible information end of the same. The intentions are good, but the results are often unfortunate. Syr74 ( talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Syr74: - Scholars don't accept WP cause they're generally jealous that they no longer have a monopoly on knowledge.

I sympathize with your point, but I don't feel like inclusion is unscholarly or necessarily a result of biases. Speaking directly to your point re "why wouldn't scholastically acceptable tomes typically include Port Author under any AR-15 related text"; how many references can you point to which actually cover the "History" of the AR-15? I think if we collected a set of sources which specifically cover the history of the AR-15, you probably would find that some reasonable number of them mention the massacre.

And at the end of the day, we are discussing a single sentence here, right? Making WP:WEIGHT arguments over a single sentence is rarely convincing unless you're talking about the most trivial minutia (which I don't think this is).

For the record, I usually take a moderate stance on gun control (from an American standpoint at least, which is probably pro-gun from a European standpoint). NickCT ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support the text as written because the information shows up in many sources. —  pythoncoder  ( talk |  contribs) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support because of change in national gun law, but I don't think it needs to be an entire section. A one sentence addition to the AR-15 style rifle section seems fine. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 04:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per Red Rock Canyon. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 02:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support clearly a major event that influenced a huge change in large country's firearms regulations. Pmsyyz ( talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Threaded Discussion

I think that the voting options here are problematic. Support with a possible caveat to include a link isn't an option I'm comfortable with for reasons I suspect are clear. As such, I am forced to vote with a simple oppose. Syr74 ( talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The intent is that editors will explain the level of coverage they feel is appropriate. Since this isn't a vote, whoever closes the discussion will gauge the consensus based on these comments. I want to avoid a situation in which someone !votes "oppose" just because they have a minor quibble with the wording. – dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

While I don't doubt that the intent is good here, the layout itself is short-sighted in my opinion and absolutely gives the appearance of a bias toward the support side of the argument. Even though this is not a scholastic article we can learn something from that well developed format, which is that the question should be written as if the burden is on inclusion, not omission, as it allows for a better snapshot of what people actually think. For example, if 10 people support here and 6 oppose, but 3 of those who support only support inclusion of a see also link and no actual of inclusion of any text in this article, the final vote wouldn't in any way support the majority view which would be no text within the article. Honestly, I suspect that this is a formality because I fully expect support to take the day here easily either way, but appearances do matter. We need to be careful that it looks like we gave every option an equal opportunity so these things can be put to bed permanently. 98.23.45.127 ( talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The word "permanently" doesn't belong in a discussion of this nature. Recent student protests tell us that, clearly, moods change in this arena. HiLo48 ( talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

And that is the problem, moods shouldn't direct an encyclopedia, relevance and balance should. Syr74 ( talk) 01:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Of course, and as the mood of the public changes, and reliable sources tell us about the changed attitudes, that is what we report. We cannot write as if the mood of the public will never change. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

missing sources

Has anyone checked the basis for this discussion? "Following the use of a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine in the Port Arthur massacre" has doubts due to my request for sources in Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Sources -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 11:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. Warner, Kate; (March 1, 1999) stated: " It is a version of the M16 used by the US military and it has but one purpose - to kill or disable. " reply

• I previously hadn't checked the sources for the proposed passage. Two of the three don't support the claim and the one remaining is weak. I would suggest we find one or two more sources that support the claim (shouldn't be hard) and fix the sourcing. While I'm supporting inclusion here, I think the weight, especially as cited is weak and wouldn't pass DUE as cited. If nothing is added by this evening I try to find some sources. Springee ( talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Well if not the specific model SP1 Carbine was mentioned, it is somehow logically that it can not have had influence on developing laws in australia. My assumption is that the government thought broader as of "assault rifles" or Battle rifle. BTW in the case of "Port Arthur massacre" there is a second rifle with missing sources. The identification as L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle as quoted in the article could be an urban legend. -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This is why I'm very on the fence with this crime. There were two semi-auto rifles involved but it doesn't seem that many sources link either specific rifle to the crime. It seems the crime is associated with the general class of "Semi-auto rifle" but not with the specific rifles used. But since this is such a significant crime in terms of outcome and impact to the politics of gun control I'm actually ignoring what I think is a weak weight argument. Springee ( talk) 13:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Because the information came from a IP-Editor i followed IP 96.54.224.159. Surprise, surprise ... this user systematically altered informations about identification of weapons in crimes !!! See [3] [4] [5] [6]. Seeing thus I can only recommend to check informations about weapons in each case before creating new urban legends. -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 14:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. IP Special:Contributions/70.66.13.54&offset=&limit=500&target=70.66.13.54 has the same edit style [7] and wow Special:Contributions/96.54.224.159&offset=&limit=5000&target=96.54.224.159 IP active mission since 2011 & talkpage ;-) next IP is Special:Contributions/104.128.253.21 with changing weapon info here. + Special:Contributions/104.128.253.2 All this IPs are located in British Columbia, City: Nanaimo or Victoria reply

Tom, if I understand your concern, you think an IP editor inserted a fact that was basically never questioned and has now been accepted as fact without actual proof. After some quick web searching I think we might be suffering from a Wikipedia effect. As you indicated, the IP editor inserted the information here [ [8]]. I've been searching for references that support the SLR's inclusion and found a number that note the rifle was used but so far all date from after the above insertion. Thus it opens the question that sources and articles talking about the subject have reviewed this article, quoted the claims and now we can, in a circular fashion, cite sources that support the claim. But if we could trace their citation chain back they would be citing Wikipedia. This is definitely a potential issue and perhaps one that should be raised on the Port Arthur page assuming no RS prior to March 2012 can be found. Springee ( talk) 15:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

That's right. Sources for the Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 should not be younger than 2012 or better 2010 to be reliable. For the already located IP an Wikipedia:CheckUser might be recommendable. Wrong informations are picked up and reported f.e. here. Exactly this ends up in having wrong informations in references f.e. in L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle#cite_note-22 here. This ends up in a need for critical checks for all this crime related articles. Connecting crimes to weapon groups as done in Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_used is less critical. To do this checks in RFC's for firearms-articles is somehow not the best option. -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This is pretty significant. Do we even have a credible source that specifically states this rifle was the weapon used in the Port Author Massacre? Syr74 ( talk) 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You could try the court transcripts. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• I ran a Google searches for "Port Arthur Massacre" "AR-15", "Port Arthur Massacre" "L1A1" and "Port Arthur Massacre" "FAL" (FAL is another name for the F1A1), restricted to 1996-2011. The AR-15 is well-sourced but I haven't found any sources for SP1 Carbine. L1A1/FAL got a number of non-RS hits. It doesn't appear that the editor pulled "L1A1" out of thin air, but the sourcing is definitely questionable. It would be helpful to dig up an official investigation report.

At this point, I would say that we have strong pre-2011 support for "AR-15". – dlthewave ☎ 22:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a look. Tom found a court document that mentioned the SLR [ [9]]. So at that point I would say at least we have a non-blog/forum source. I understand court testimony isn't always "reliable" but at this point I'm satisfied that at least the claim wasn't invented around the time it was inserted into the article. We might still be seeing some Wikipedia effect with reporters seeing the fact here then reporting it based on what's here but that isn't an issue so long as the referencing isn't circular. Springee ( talk) 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The Aussies did not blame a specific gun for the attack and demonize it like the Yanks do. They simply banned ALL semi-auto rifles as a result. Therefore, the specific guns used were irrelevant. What's happened is many years after all was said and done. American politicians and media rediscovered that AR-15 was used and pointed to the Aussie gun ban as the solution to the so called gun problem. If anything, the Aussies were more concerned with the use of the SLR which was still used by the Australian Army at the time. Now we have editors who have decided that it is their mission to add criminal use section to every firearms article that they can get away with. And, even if they lose today, they will be back tomorrow with another rfc, and then another and another until they win.-- RAF910 ( talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You lost me completely there with your final two sentences. Not constructive at all. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Undue

• Almost no AR-15 coverage seem to include either Port Arthur or the named law. Yes, you can find some sies out of the millions of AR-15 mentions -- but it is a tiny percentage. Googling for AR-15 I get 41.2 Million hits, and if I add port Arthur I get 167,000 -- less than 0.4%, even with some of those are Port Arthur Texas. If I go to a good RS BBC.com, AR-15 got 17,300 hits and +Port Arthur got 7 -- a 0.04% rate. Going to WashingtonPost.com I get 12,100 versus 22, for a 0.18% rte. So -- mentioning AR-15 in the Port Arthur article may be due, but it is just not significant the other way around. Cheers. Markbassett ( talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This is an issue I struggle with. Weight is easy to establish when RSs talking about the subject of the article mention a claim (articles about Mustangs talking about idiot drivers crashing when leaving Coffee and Cars events). What about cases where the subject of the Wiki article is mentioned in an article about another subject (Mr (name here) has a big Mustang collection)? This is a matter of weight that should be worked out. Project Firearms provided guidance by suggesting weight be limited to cases where the impact was more than just the crime (a significant legal change for example). As I said before, I think it's odd that a RfC similar to this one said do not mention the use of a blue Chevy Caprice in the DC snipper attacks (strong opposition) yet the gun used in the same attacks does mention the crime on it's page. It seems logically inconsistent to me but I haven't looks to see if the inclusion on the gun page was ever challenged. Springee ( talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Current sources do not support statement: A number of editors have said the proposed statement is well sourced. That may be true if we use different sources but the current sources are not acceptable for the claims being made. The first does not mention Colt or AR-15 at all. The second says "Colt AR-15" which does support at least part of the "Colt AR-15 SP1" in the proposed text. The third says AR-15 but not Colt. Sources that support the full statement are available [ [10]]. If we are going to say something is well sourced we should ensure the sources actually support the claim. For what it's worth I was one of the editors who assumed the statement was supported by the provided citations. I still stand by my statement above but the sourcing needs to be fixed. Springee ( talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

AR 15 is one of 3 Guns which were named in court for the Port Arthur massacre: "AR15 semi-automatic .223 calibre rifle and FN, commonly called an SLR military style semi-automatic .308 calibre rifle and a semi-automatic Daiwoo twelve gauge shotgun". Protocol (19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996) For me this gives the idea that the court was not interested to identify any submodel of this weapons. For this RFC one of 3 guns is less significant. Even less significant, because the Port Arthur massacre is already mentioned in AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime_and_mass_shootings -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 01:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Edit break

A source for the Colt AR-15 SP1 carbine, serial number SP128807, would be found in "The Port Arthur Shooting Incident", Australian Police Journal; December 1998. Problem: I don't have this source and it isn't to be found online. It's my understanding that it's available in many libraries in Australia. I'm going to see if ILL works internationally. Geogene ( talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You mean "The Port Arthur shooting incident; Australian Police Journal; December 1998: pp. 207-228." ??? Very interesting. By the serial Number I found KEITH ALLAN NOBLE: MASS MURDER Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (E-Book with 718 Pages). At p. 29 "A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION " and more Info. Addtional reading with Stewart K. Beattie: A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages) If this Infos are reliable, parts of the story have to be rewritten because of partial debt of australian officials. I suggest to wait here till the authors have done their job in the article Port Arthur massacre (Australia). If you want to thank for the help of WP:Firearms to check and find sources for the article Port Arthur massacre here or in any press releases (comparable with the press-releases which blamed WP:Firearms) will show up in future. Interesting to see if mentioning of this scandal connected to the Colt AR 15 article will still be on the top-level-wish-list of crime and politics-related writers or other party’s. -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 08:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

"Stewart K. Beattie; A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages)" appears to be a self-published source by a conspiracy theorist. I looked at it briefly, so I could be wrong, but that was my first impression. There are apparently other theories out there that Bryant was "framed" or some such. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Well lets just see how it works out in Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics. The Book you mentioned is absolutely reliable concerning the technical details (which are not available in other sources). Conspiracy (aka POV) seems to be a problem in all sources ... depending from which side they come. We will do our best to prove the truth. Any help is appreciated. Best -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Update & Info: there is a problem with a central source/document of the article. Pls. see Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Problems_with_used_sources_of_the_article -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 20:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Update & Info: as there are still many deficits in the article I added an additional request for help in this project part of wikipedia in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Conclusion: You can forget about this case because of proven deficits in the linktarget

Hello Colleagues, I am very sorry to come to the conclusion that you can forget about this case because of proven deficits in the linktarget. Since more than two weeks I did my very best ( [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] etc.) and asked for help at multiple [16] + [17] + [18] + [19] + [20] + [21] etc. corners of this project. There are proven deficits in the article about Port Arthur massacre. Nobody went for it or dared to improve this article - me either. Notabene: it can not be the job of wp:gun to do wp:cleanup for wp:plt or wp:crime&CrimiBio. By this I can only suggest to close this RFC rejecting the case due to the deficits in the mentioned crime article. Best -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 06:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Ｔｏｍ: - Well, should the Port Arthur/Colt AR-15 SP1 content be added or not? I see today it has been re-added, apparently based on consensus. But that is irrelevant if there is an issue with the sourcing. - ^theWOLFchild 19:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The only sourcing issue in that sentence was "SP1 Carbine" which I've removed. The rest is well-sourced and unrelated to the concerns raised at Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia). – dlthewave ☎ 20:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If we removed material simply because of "problems" in a linked article, then every wikipedia article would have to be blanked. No article is without flaws, but those flaws don't propagate upwards to any article that discusses the same material. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 20:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

no problems or well sourced ? somebody must be joking. see "reliable sources often mention the weapon in articles" has a probem as is has been pointed out in:

• • Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)_/_HIGH_COURT_OF_AUSTRALIA_/_Filed_Information
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#Do_we_help_each_other_as_collegues_?
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Help_for_Article_Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
  • Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_58#Nobody_dares_to_touch_or_edit_the_article_Port_Arthur_massacre
  • Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Nobody_dares_to_touch_or_edit_the_article_Port_Arthur_massacre
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Crime_articles_possibly_not_reliable_???

Multiple colleagues see Problems with: WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. Best -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 04:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Most of those links are just you asking for help on various talk pages. None of them are related to the statement and sources that we're discussing here. The sources provided here directly support the fact that the massacre led to the passage of regulations. What exactly is the SYNTH/NOR/PTS concern? – dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

If you read the links ... once more: I just looked it up once more in https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary definitions from there are:

• "Primary Sources

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.

• Secondary Sources

Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research."

Main source of port of article "Port_Arthur_massacre" is invalid because legal documents. -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 09:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I still don't understand. Why are we supposed to care about the sourcing of Port Arthur massacre (Australia)? This is a discussion over the sentence proposed for this article. None of the sources are legal documents. All the sources for the proposed section are independent secondary sources. Though I don't agree that it should be included, it definitely meets the requirement for verification. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

---

Should the Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle subsection briefly summarize the content on the AR-15 style rifle page? Specifically, the relation between such rifles and the Colt version, some details on variations, how widespread they are, and most especially their use in mass shootings. 23:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

That subsection should briefly summarize the AR-15 style rifle page, as is standard. The most important elements of that article should be mentioned (if briefly). Those are the relation between such rifles and the Colt version, some details on variations, how widespread they are, and their use in mass shootings (which is arguably the most important of all, considering the depth and breadth of interest in that). Waleswatcher (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

There is no reason this section needs to summarize the parent article. Instead this section describes how the patented Colt AR-15 evolved into the generic rifles. As such it doesn't need information about the various calibers and barrel length available to generic rifles derived from the Colt rifle. Nor do we need the NY times opinion on generic AR-15s. Now per BRD restoring the old material is justified. What isn't is keeping the material you added since that isn't a long term part of the article and was immediately disputed. You should have started this talk section instead of restoring the disputed edits. Springee ( talk) 15:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Springee, thank you for responding on the talk page rather than continuing to edit war. The section I edited refers to Main article: AR-15 style rifle. As per standard wiki style, that section should briefly summarize its parent article, and my edit improved that summary. You appear to be advocating removing the section entirely or re-purposing it. Such a major change certainly requires consensus and perhaps a broader discussion. As for the NYT source, it is a news article and a reliable source per wiki, not an opinion piece. But if you believe we need more sources for that statement, there are certainly tens and possibly hundreds. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The edit war you started? Sorry, the section is describing how generic AR's came about after the Colt parents expired. We can leave the politics out. Springee ( talk) 15:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

We can leave the politics out - ?? This is not a policy-based argument. K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support, per WP:WEIGHT. Clearly topical for the subsection and follows WP:SUMMARY style, with more information available in the AR-15 article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support, so much has been written about the politics in relation to this gun that it's an NPOV violation to try to leave it out. And as I've said before, you can't escape controversy by spinning off daughter articles. The controversy comes with it. Geogene ( talk) 15:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: First WW's addition was edit warring since the editor didn't go to the talk page when the material was reverted. Second, this is an article about a specific make and model rifle. It is not the general AR-15 article so the generic politics don't need to be here. The new material doesn't describe the link between the Colt rifle and the generic rifles thus is off topic. Springee ( talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support, per Geogene and K.e.coffman. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: The content has no direct correlation to the article. - 72bikers ( talk) 19:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Forum shopping: In February almost the exact same content was rejected from the article. [ [23]]. Unless there is a reason to believe that consensus has changed this previous discussion applies here. Springee ( talk) 17:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Ping editors involved in February's discussion of this material (who aren't above) @ Drmies, Ansh666, Niteshift36, PackMecEng, Red Rock Canyon, Limpscash, RAF910, and Thewolfchild: Springee ( talk) 18:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You have just engaged in WP:votestacking. Please stop. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No, per WP:APPNOTE, notification of editors involved with previous discussions of the same or closely related topics is appropriate notification. I notified all editors involved with last Feb's discussion regarding the inclusion of the same source and passage you added earlier today. Since all involved editors, not just those one one side or the other were notified this isn't votestacking. Springee ( talk) 19:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Except you didn't. For instance, you did not notify dlthewave, who (and this is just a guess, but an informed one based on previous posts) likely would have been on the other side. So, it appears you only notified the editors you believed would support you. That is WP:Votestacking.

Failing to ping Dlthewave was an oversight. However, the Port Arthur discussion was unrelated and thus notifying those editors would be possible canvassing. Also Tom wasn't pinged so now we have potential canvassing. Springee ( talk) 19:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The editors pinged by Springee all !voted Oppose. Pinging all others who participated in the discussion @ London Hall, Fluous, JustinFranks, and Icewhiz: – dlthewave ☎ 19:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Did those editors vote on the Proposal 1? Springee ( talk) 19:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, dlthewave, it's kind of unfair to attack Springee for leaving out those four editors. He did ping every editor who contributed to the previous discussion about the topic of this discussion. Except you, which I will assume was an honest mistake. Those four editors you pinged didn't participate in the discussion about the section in this article about AR-15 style rifles, the subject of this current discussion. They don't necessarily fit the criteria Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic just because they commented on the talk page on a different issue. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 20:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

On review I still missed Dlthewave's edit. The third time I looked I saw it. It was a nonvoting reply buried in a back and forth. Springee ( talk) 20:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The whole votestacking claim is actually a bit humorous. It shows we keep discussing this and have to go through this exercise every time some editor who have done zero work on this article breezes in and decides his/her POV needs inserted. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Mass-shootings committed with the use of other weapons are not sufficiently related to the topic of this article to merit inclusion. And for now I've removed the content that Waleswatcher added. The material you added was challenged, and is currently in under discussion, so please do not edit war to re-add until you have consensus. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 19:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Edited apparently I'm blind, sorry for the obviously unnecessary ping. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 19:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support. The relationship between AR-15-style rifles and mass shootings is obviously a big deal; to exclude it from a brief summary has no justification. Fluous ( talk) 20:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

This article isn't about AR-15 style rifles. That is a separate topic and does include the material in question. Springee ( talk) 20:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

There would be no AR-15 style rifles without AR-15 rifles. Drmies ( talk) 20:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support a measured summary. The AR-15 is notable for being what it is, which includes its ease of use and accessibility, which in turn help explain the enormous popularity of the weapon and its derivatives among mass murderers. Of course there is a direct correlation, as the sources bear out. Drmies ( talk) 20:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

True but that doesn't mean than information goes into this article. Remember, this isn't meant to be a lead type summary of the AR-15 type rifle article. This section section simply states where the generic rifles came from. Springee ( talk) 22:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Please let other people talk. You're monopolizing the discussion. All I see is "Springee this," "Springee that," and meta-discussions about Springee's conduct. Fluous ( talk) 01:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Not relevant to this article, and should be, if properly written, in AR-15 style rifle. If some summary must be included, it should be given proper weighting. This material, now removed, is not due material. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support - It's relevant to include a summary of the AR-15 style rifle article, with a focus on how it evolved from the Colt AR-15. – dlthewave ☎ 01:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

How is it relevant? Remember this section only exists to explain how generic AR-15s evolved out of expired patents. Springee ( talk) 02:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not really sure what it is you're supporting Dlthewave. The article already includes a summary of how AR-15 style rifles evolved from the AR-15. Indeed, it has two paragraphs dedicated to that alone. The request isn't to summarize, it's to copy across. Note that this material in AR-15 style rifle (added yesterday and contentious) is near identical to the second half or so of the material added here (also added yesterday, and also contentious). The first part (about being beloved and reviled) is, I think, unique and does not come from the other article. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Would you like to suggest some other wording that summarizes the role of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings? That could be helpful. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Coming here from ANI, I don't really consider the Port Arthur stuff particularly relevant to this discussion. But since participants in "proposal 2" which only concerned that have been pinged above, it seems only fair to notify all participants in discussions concerning that. Therefore I am pinging all (nn) who participated in the 3 recent discussions ( #Port Arthur Massacre, #Potential RfC on Port Arthur Massacre, #RfC: Port Arthur Massacre) on the Port Arthur massacre in this talk page who have not yet either been pinged or took part (pp). @ HiLo48, J. Johnson, Legacypac, Syr74, Tom (LT), Dlohcierekim, Johnbod, Cavalryman V31, First Light, CamV8, Jytdog, Markbassett, Neutrality, Scope creep, NickCT, Pythoncoder, Seraphim System, L293D, Pmsyyz, Ｔｏｍ, ForeverZero, and Galobtter:. IMO it would be good to also notify people who participated in #You wouldn't have an article about the Ford Bronco without mentioning O.J. Simpson and #"used in many mass shootings" since these seem equally relevant, but I leave that up to others to consider and discuss. Because of the large number of people, I did not bother to attempt to determined if any of these people either had an active topic ban or a site ban which would prevent them taking part or otherwise is unwilling or unable to take part. So I apologise if I notified anyone who is unable to participate or has already indicated they do not wish to do so. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"Port Arthur stuff particularly relevant" ? It is, but generally, not particularly. I've worked 2 weeks on it and general problems with sources could not be solved. See te complete section of Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 12:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

*Oppose If they are not the AR-15 it has no place here. Change to Support, as I did not know what I was talking about when I made this vote. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support per Drimes Legacypac ( talk) 12:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support per Geogene and K.e.coffman. —  pythoncoder  ( talk |  contribs) 14:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• support per WP:SYNC and WP:SUMMARY. For this kind of meta-editing generally the best way to keep WP in sync with itself is to copy the lead of A to the relevant spot in the body of the B, adding sources that are already in the body of A as needed (there may not be sources, since per LEAD, the LEAD doesn't need sources when it is functioning as a lead.. but it will need them when functioning as a summary of A in the body of B). In this case the "style" article mentions mass shootings already (appropriately, summarizing the section in the body of that article), so of course that content comes here too. Jytdog ( talk) 15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose..... again. For the reasons already expressed in past discussions. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Not relevant to this article and fails weight and NPOV. It shouldn't even be in the lead of AR-15 style rifle. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, not relevant to the article. Cavalryman V31 ( talk) 20:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC). reply
• Oppose, Completely irrelevant to the topic of this article. Syr74 ( talk) 00:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply
• OPPOSE, As stated above. Is this the 5th or 6th time we've voted on this content? I've lost track.-- RAF910 ( talk) 00:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - per multiple, valid points and guidelines cited by Springee. And, Waleswatcher... you need to learn when to WP:STOPBEATINGTHEDEADHORSE already... - ^theWOLFchild 01:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So you want the article to deliberately go against the guideline WP:SYNC? That's fine, just want to be sure that's what you're saying. Or are you opposed to the wording I proposed (which is not actually a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle) for some other reason? Waleswatcher (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't say that... you did. - ^theWOLFchild 01:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Opposish - Not a hard opposition but seems not necessary to do so and seems more an issue than a benefit. I see no policy basis guiding towards such, it seems contrary to practices done at similar "Main article" pointers, and I see no mention of a functional reason or benefit for making such a restriction on what gets said here. It seems proposing this article part be limited to a duplication of content on just the basis of saying that "should" be rather than showing a point to it being in this article. For comparison, we do not have a duplication when the Dodge Caravan points at the Fifth generation section subsection of Volkswagen Routan . I see the mention of WP:SYNC but think it not appropriate since AR-15-Style is not a sub-article WP:CFORK of the Colt AR-15 -- it is the larger and later separate topic of things by separate makers in apparently further evolution. (Or patent feature or a kind of label -- it's not clearly stated what the AR-15 "style" is or where the usage "AR-15 style" started & applies to.) Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Discussion related to above survey

I've taken the liberty of moving these questions to below what has become a survey section above. I hope the involved editors do not mind. With this I also removed an edit break from the section above Springee ( talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

(no objection here, there is still some type of edit break here, which is needed, so no problem. - wolf 02:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)) reply

• Question for those opposed: Given WP:SYNC, specifically

"Since the lead of any article should be the best summary of the article, it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section, with a {main} hatnote pointing to the subarticle."

what exactly are you suggesting? Are you saying we should intentionally not follow that guideline? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

That's not how it works. You need to slow down and take your cues from the community and project p&g. You don't just get to do whatever you want. - ^theWOLFchild 01:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

That goes for you, too. You don't just get to ignore clear and simple policies guidlines like WP:SYNC. Nor does it particularly matter how many editors agree with you if they do not have any valid arguments. What matters is logic and wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

FYI - wp:sync isn't a policy, it's a guideline. - wolf

"That goes for you, too." - Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but I haven't attempted to add, alter or remove any content from any firearm article, and not just to suit my personal preferences, but at all. - ^theWOLFchild 23:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"I haven't...remove[d] any content from any firearm article...at all." Huh - so what exactly is this, then? Waleswatcher (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

That's a revert, of a single, disputed word, that is/was currently being discussed on the talk page and should not have been re-added at that time, if at all. (I would think that was obvious and not in need of explanation). Look, you made a comment that basically says "if I can't have my way, I'll just go do it my way, anyway", to which I replied; "It doesn"t work that way...", which for some strange reason you then replied "same goes for you". I was simply pointing out that I hasn't made any content changes, nor was I threatening to, if I didn't get my way, which made your retort kinda' pointless. - ^theWOLFchild 05:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You made a mistake (in saying you hadn't removed any content at all). Just own it, it's OK. As for your edit being a revert of something that "should not have been re-added", that's a falsehood. That word was in the article for some time. User:72bikers took it out (without any comment either on the talk page or in the edit summary, which also changed some other things), I put it back as it was, ..., and you reverted my revert. You were the one going against BRD and insisting on removing content that had been there for a while (without discussion or consensus), not me.

Again, I'm happy to collaborate with you and anyone else on this page, but the tendentious attitude here makes it very hard. It seems the only way to make progress may be to be bold, get reverted, try to discuss it, document a complete unwillingness to engage with the issues, and then go to an RFC. If that's where this is going, so be it, but I'd much rather not as it's a waste of everyone's time. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Ww; "Mistake"...? No, I posted a fact. And your contributions to this article and participation on this talk page can hardly be called "collaboration", so own that. Now go post your RfC, it can't be anymore of a waste of time than this dog's breakfast of a tp 'discussion'... - wolf 17:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Waleswatcher my edit in the area of the one word removed had a edit summary. I have also addressed that edit here on the talk page with my explanation, when question arose so lets be clear.

Your argumentative tone on trivial matters is really reading as uncivil. You again state it is only you that has the knowledge to judge what should or should not be in the article. You again state you will do whatever you want regardless of consequences. You also state if you are not allowed to get your way you will go tell. You are aware you do not own the article right? This all read as uncivil and disruptive.

I again ask you to please do not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia. - 72bikers ( talk) 16:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should consider that these editors aren't ignoring it... well not exactly. They aren't applying it because that isn't the scope of the section. You are correct, what matters is logic and wiki policy. You should also understand that reasonable people can disagree. Springee ( talk) 03:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Waleswatcher, I think this explains why you don't understand the objections you mentioned here [ [24]]. You are assuming, incorrectly, that this subtopic of the Colt AR-15 article is meant to be a summary of the generic AR-15 article. If that were true I would somewhat agree with your intent. Not the edits you added the other day but the idea that this section and the AR-15 style rifle lead should be in sync. However, the section in question is not meant to summarize the topic of generic AR-15 style rifles. It is only meant to tell users how IP that was originally controlled by Colt became generic to the extent that other manufactures can copy it without license. So the only content that is relevant in that section is content that supports that scope.

There is no SYNC concern because this isn't a parent article spinning off a subsection into a child-article nor the reverse. Consider the topic of the IBM PC. It is the common ancestor of basically all Wintel computers. That doesn't mean Microsoft Windows or Wintel are child articles of the IBM PC article. The IBM PC article talks about the rise of clones just as it relates to the IBM PC. It doesn't go into the way the rise of clone computers greatly expanded the range of PC options, configurations nor drove down the cost of hardware nor how the clones lead to the rise of the Wintel platform. It doesn't mention Wintel controversies such as various MS and Intel PC anti trust complaints. The point being what is important in the IBM PC article as with the article here is in context of the article subject, not the larger picture. In context of the Colt AR-15 topic the section talks about how the design became generic. Not what happened after the design became generic or how non-Colt AR-15 style rifles were used. What happened after is covered in or linked from the AR-15 style rifle article.

I would strongly suggest you not make the change you just proposed. You now have two editors who have directly stated that is not acceptable and we have a number of editors above who have raised objections that would clearly cover such a change. Springee ( talk) 02:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Springee, your rearrangement disconnected my question from the response it was attached to. Now it's much more difficult to understand what was said when. Please refrain from editing other user's comments on talk pages.

As I mentioned in my note you are welcome to reverse the change. However, I would also suggest that you not put what appeared to be a general question in the middle of what has become a survey section. Your general question was all but guaranteed to hurt readability of the discussion. Your question was directed at "those opposed" not a single editor. Springee ( talk) 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Regarding WP:SYNC, you assert "You are assuming, incorrectly, that this subtopic of the Colt AR-15 article is meant to be a summary of the generic AR-15 article. If that were true I would somewhat agree with your intent." I do not need to assume that, because it says as much in the article. The section is titled "AR-15 style rifle", and the first line underneath is "Main article: AR-15 style rifle". Case closed. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry, you are still failing to see the scope of the section. It wouldn't make sense to treat the AR-15 style rifle as a child of this article. Adding a link to the main article doesn't mean this is meant to be a summary of the AR-15 article. Please take context and the comments of other editors in mind when considering such things. It would avoid some of these issues in the future. Springee ( talk) 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't say anything about it being s child. I said that the section titled "AR-15 style rifle", with first line "Main article: AR-15 style rifle", is a summary of AR-15 style rifle. Are you seriously disputing that? Waleswatcher (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Those don't mean the section is meant to summarize the other article. This is wrong on several levels. The context of the previous discussions which you didn't consult before adding nearly the same text could have been an aid. The content of the section also should have made it clear since the first thing it takes about was the patents. SYNC applies to parent-child articles where a subtopic is spun out. It doesn't universally apply. Previous editors were trying to be helpful by making it clear there exists a general AR-15 article vs this one about the Colt rifle. They also wanted to discuss the connection between. This is why the content was rejected. It's out of scope for this article. Springee ( talk) 10:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

OK - your position seems clear. Just to be sure, you maintain that the section titled "AR-15 style rifle", with first line "Main article: AR-15 style rifle", is NOT a summary of AR-15 style rifle, and for that reason is not subject to WP:SYNC. Is that accurate? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• There's no reason that we "must" or "must not" use summary style. It's a content decision that can be discussed, and either outcome would be acceptable regardless of the original intent of this section. Several of the !voters above point out that it currently seems to be in summary style and support keeping it that way. – dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Correct. The notion that a section titled "AR-15 style rifle", with first line "Main article: AR-15 style rifle", cannot be edited so as to accurately summarize the article AR-15 style rifle is simply nonsensical. Unless there are actual substantive objections (beyond "that's not the way I want it"), I will go ahead and do that as per WP:SYNC. If necessary, I can take this to a wider audience via an RFC or something. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Look at the article history. The section clearly was intended to explain the split, not to be a general history. The edit you propose would be wp:reckless given the clear lakelack of support above (edit: strike through comment because WW seems to feel that such a minor correction can not be made without a strike through). This is the exact same issue @ PackMecEng: and I are warning you about here [ [25]] Springee ( talk) 14:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

There is no "clear lake of support" - there was no consensus on the change I proposed, but the support and oppose are almost evenly split. In retrospect that may have been because the change I proposed was not clearly a summary of the relevant article. As for the original intent in creating that subsection, even if you are correct it is irrelevant. It clearly makes sense to have a summary section of the AR 15 style rifle article here, and in fact there is one, so let's make it an actual summary as it should be. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I will point out your theories are just your own opinions not shared by all. The persisytance to display another editors spelling mistake and dismissiveness to other editors is not conducive to a legitimate civil discussion. I ask you to please not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia. - 72bikers ( talk) 21:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

72bikers, I'm happy to collaborate and hear your opinion. It clearly makes sense for this article to have a section summarizing AR-15 style rifles in general, and there already is such a section. The easiest way to update it is to just copy over the lead section of that article, that's what WP:SYNC says. The lead already is a summary, and when one article is updated, it's easy to update the other one. If there's some inappropriate or wrong information, you can just remove it from the lead of AR-15 style rifles and copy the new version over here. Make sense? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't even see where you had any interest in the article a week ago. Today, you're setting ultimatums for it (if I don't get my way, I'm making this change). So you'll have to excuse me if I don't completely believe your willingness to collaborate. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Care to comment on substance, rather than casting aspersions and failing to assume good faith? Waleswatcher (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• As the others have already pointed out, pointing out what you've said and done isn't an aspersion. You don't understand BRD and I have commented on the substance...all the other times we've had this discussion with every other editor coming in to 'save' the article. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not an aspersion; you did, point blank, threaten to engage in disruptive editing if the discussion didn't go your way. Quote: By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC, and Diff: Special:diff/841090940. Mr rnddude ( talk) 00:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

There's nothing disruptive about that. It would be standard WP:BRD - except that I'm announcing what I'm intending to do (and why) in advance so it can be discussed, which makes it more careful (and less bold) than wiki standard. Now, do you care to comment on substance, or are you going to continue to be tendentious? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No it wouldn't be standard BRD. It'd be you switching tack in hopes of forcing your preference through. By definition, it would be disruption. I've addressed what you said. Tendentious means partisan, just fyi. Mr rnddude ( talk) 01:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"I've addressed what you said." - where? Waleswatcher (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

BRD does not say you can make an edit without consensus, it says you do not need to seek it. Once you have sought it and it is not present it does not allow you to make an edit. Any opposed edit (and this is clearly opposed) must first get consensus before being made. I would susgest you do not go ahead and make this edit, you will likely get a block. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comment, but where precisely do you get that from? Per WP:BRD:

BRD is especially successful where:

• ... local consensus differs from global consensus, and your goal is to apply global consensus.
• ... people haven't really thought things through yet.
• ... people are only discussing policy or theory, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus.
• ... people are talking past each other instead of getting down to brass tacks with concrete proposals

Several of the above apply here, particularly the first and last ones.Waleswatcher (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

OK lets put it another way, you quote the part where it says you can edit if you do not have clear consensus on the talk page. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

That's the whole point of the entire BRD protocol! But if you really want a quote, here's one: "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." In this case, there was no consensus for or against the edit I made (survey was 11-9), and the discussion has clearly bogged down. So, per this policy I can attempt a new "bold" edit that may help move things forward. In this case it would be to copy the lead verbatim from AR-15 style rifle. That has a clear justification per WP:SYNC, by contrast to my previous edit which was arguably ad hoc or undue in some way. If the new edit gets reverted again, I guess the next move is to start an RFC. Now, do you really consider that "disruptive"? It seems to me it conforms perfectly to BRD. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

WW your behavior is still exactly the same, you have not heard anything I have said or asked " dismissiveness to other editors is not conducive to a legitimate civil discussion. I ask you to please not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia."

You seems to feel only you are able to understand policies. These issues and others are part of why I tried to be helpful and post a link to information of policies you appeared to not be able to fully grasp. You stated that was harassment and you felt you needed to leave a warning and in turn proceeded to haharass me. I also see you have not yet grasped you do not have the right to do this as you repeated this with Springee, after he specifically asked you not to do this. All of these issues speak to being uncivil and disruptive.

You clear satated that you would do whatever you want regardless of what others felt and would ignore consensus. I again ask you to please not see everything in just a black or white view and be more open to a collaborative encyclopedia. - 72bikers ( talk) 14:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

72bikers, the last time you posted a comment like this, I replied that I'm happy to collaborate with you, and I politely asked your opinion on the edit I am proposing. You ignored me. In your next post you are again claiming I'm the one that's disruptive. Sorry, but that's not how it looks from where I sit. Can you please engage with the issues? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Except this "new" edit has already been rejected, so we know already what will happen. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not the same edit, nor was the old one rejected - there was a stalemate. But if you really feel trying one new edit would be "disruptive" (I do not agree, this endless talk page back and forth is far more so than one edit and a possible revert), I could take this directly to an RFC instead. The question would be whether the AR-15 style rifle subsection here should be "synced" to its main article a la WP:SYNC. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

What the hell does that mean? hat tells me nothing about what you want to include. You could always post your proposed edit here and let us see how "different" it is form what you have added before. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle per WP:SYNC? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So you have already made this edit? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You are correct, you only "Added info from the lede of the main article", rather then the whole lead. So just expanding the material so you can still add this is not changing what you wanted to add. It is just adding more padding around it, and that to me is not a "new". And it will get reverted again. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I think you edited your comment while I was responding, but anyway here's what I wrote.

OK. In your opinion, which is preferable - make the edit, and if it doesn't get reverted (or there is constructive editing/discussion) great, and if it does start an RFC, or just start an RFC without trying the edit first? I think it's pretty obvious the first option is better a la BRD, but I respect your point of view and I guess you may disagree. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I disagree, BRD (to my mind) should only be used to generate debate about a suggested edit. We already know there is going to be a debate because the idea has already (before you have made the edit) been rejected. So that mean s the only was forwards if (if you really want one ) an RFC. It will save time and avert another edit war. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. In that case I'll start an RfC or village pump discussion on this specific question: Should the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle per WP:SYNC? Waleswatcher (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Please consider WP:FORUMSHOP before deciding how and where to raise this question or even what the question should be. While the above discussion was not the exact same question you are now suggesting, it is close and would represent the 3rd time it was raised in as many months. Do you think the initial rejection or the current lack of consensus was based on the particular text? Would your proposed change result in some of the above changing their opinions/reasons? The survey above was well attended so I don't think we could justify a RfC based on limited feedback to the above question. Springee ( talk) 19:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. But as you say it's not really the same question, and it has the clear advantage that if there is a consensus in favor, as a "sync" it's a permanent solution - there need not be any more such discussions, at least not over this page. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Not that I agree with your assesment of the validity of this potential post of yours, but let's say you do post your "new and completely different" question and there is a clear consensus against you... will you accept it and finally drop this? Or will you; A) continue to argue it to death? B) threaten to make your edit anyway? C) just post your question all over again, just slightly tweaked, on a different page, a couple of days later? D) all of the above?

By the way you keep saying there's "no consensus" with the "11-9" outcome. You do realize that it's not a vote? It's the quality of the arguments that determines consensus, including with straw polls. Instead of doing this all over again, perhaps an uninvolved admin should review the 11-9 debate and determine if there is consensus, and possibly save us all the trouble of debating this all over again. Anyone have any thoughts on this? - ^theWOLFchild 00:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose cherrypicked bleedover - responding to ping by Nil Einne. I'm more about stopping the Bronco cahse being kept to the OJ article and out of the Bronco article ... but same thing here -- that it is UNDUE given the small percentage of the topic for the article and OFFTOPIC of the article, and in this case adds that people are doing OR by cherrypicking what parts to include. You might make a case for See Also -- but not for replicating the same content over & over at every article that coincidentally uses the same word as something in the content being replicated. Also, if you're going to summarize another article it should be done according to prominence in that other article. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 02:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

but not for replicating the same content over & over at every article that coincidentally uses the same word as something in the content being replicated What the hell? You realize that the Colt AR-15 is an AR-15 rifle, right? It's not "coincidence" that one word ("AR-15") occurs in both articles. Articles are not random collections of words. The selection and arrangement of words confers meaning. Geogene ( talk) 02:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

All Colt AR-15's are AR-15's, not all AR-15's are Colt AR-15's. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

+1 and some are war-weapons like M16 rifle. For people who don't know the interconnections it's just too hard to understand. -- Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• No AR15s are M16s. Those are two different rifles. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The m-16 is a developed of the AR-15, and thus us as much an AR-15 as any other derivative, which is my point. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You're confusing yourself. The ArmaLite AR15 was select fire and developed into the M16. Different company. This is the Colt AR15. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So not that much dissimilar (apart from full Auto capabilities then (say) the LM308MWS then, made by a different company? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

What does similarity have to do with anything? Niteshift36 ( talk) 13:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

OK lets word it another way the LM308MWS is not made by Colt and yet is still an AR-15 style rifle, so why would being made by a different company affect whether or not is is an AR-15 style rifle? But I think I was saying that, a few functional or cosmetic dissimilarities do not affect whether or not is is an AR-15 derivative. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Again, what are you talking about? Everyone hear that knows what they're talking about understands the difference between an AR-15 and an AR-15 style rifle. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Niteshift36 and Slatersteven: Slatersteven is correct and Niteshift36 is wrong on this. Niteshift, you wrote "The ArmaLite AR15 was select fire and developed into the M16. Different company. This is the Colt AR15." It's true that Armalite marketed its rifle to the army, but it was rejected. Colt bought the rights to the design and the name in 1959, and had the army take another look. The army eventually accepted the design in '64, and Colt then started offering a "civilian version of the M-16, which it called the AR-15". All that is discussed here. [26] Waleswatcher (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Both of you spout sentences you read somewhere and don't appreciate the actual differences between the Armalite AR15 and the Colt AR15. At this point, this tangent has nothing to offer in terms of improving the article. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Did I say anything to the contrary? What I said was that whilst all Colt AR-15's are AR-15 derivatives (is this incorrect are they derivative BAR or M-14 derivatives?), not (the clue is in the word, not) all AR-15's are colt AR-15's. What about that statement is in correct? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sir, the AR-15 has absolutely nothing to do with with the BAR or the M14 rifle. Again, (per your talk page discussion) I ask that stop editing a subject that you clearly know nothing about.-- RAF910 ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Try and read what people have written. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It would probably be helpful to have, even if just on the talk page, a timeline/history of the Armalite AR-15 vs Colt M-16 vs Colt Ar-15 etc. My understanding from rough memory etc, is Armalite made the AR-15 (select fire rifle). They weren't able to get a buyer and needed money so they sold the design to Colt. Colt then changed some details and released both the select fire M-16 (not sure what Colt called it internally since the M-16 name would have come from the military). Colt also released a semi-auto only version which was the Colt AR-15. So I think it is fair to say both Colt rifles are close derivatives of the Armalite AR-15. I suspect Colt initially focused on making the military select fire version (ie the M-16). After it was done they redesigned the M-16 to make it semi-auto only and make it non-trivial to convert to select fire (not a case of just dropping in parts). If I'm correct then the evolution was Armalite AR-15 -> Colt M-16 -> Colt AR-15 -> (patents expire) generic clone AR-15s not authorized by Colt (nearly part by part identical) -> generic AR-15 pattern rifles that include significant deviations from the original model including changed gas systems, changed cartridge types, etc. Anyway, it may be helpful if we could find a source to outline this lineage. It would be useful both in this article and the AR-15 style rifle article. I'll see if I can find a RS saying something like that this evening. Springee ( talk) 13:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Springee: This source discusses the early history of that, if not in great detail [27] . Waleswatcher (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC) reply

When sources discuss AR-15 rifles, they are referring to Colt AR-15s, as well as all other civilian makes. "AR-15" is a category, "Colt AR-15" is a member of that category. Geogene ( talk) 17:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

But when they discus Colt AR-15's do they mean all AR-15's? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You have just accidentally discovered the heart of matter. All of those "reliable sources" that some editors are constantly ranting about are incompetent on the subject matter. They don't know what they are talking about. They only know that AR-15s are scary looking and shoot fast. And, they make no effort to give accurate information.-- RAF910 ( talk) 18:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

So how many of them confuse AR-15's with Colts? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sir, your question confirms that you have little to no firearms knowledge. Again, you are relying on sources of information that are incompetent on the subject matter. They don't know what they are talking about. They only know that AR-15s are scary looking and shoot fast. And, they make no effort to give accurate information.-- RAF910 ( talk) 18:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, as obviously I do not know enough about the subject my vote must have been wrong so I will change it. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC). Slatersteven ( talk) 18:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I could not concur more with RAF's last statement. It is also nice to see editors are open to reason and willingness to a civil rational discussion. - 72bikers ( talk) 18:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I have now changed my vote based upon my previous lack of understanding of the topic. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• [User_talk:Waleswatcher]] - WP:SYNC is not applicable for several reasons. First, that is a guideline for content forks which would be for subsections of the Colt article, not the case here. Second, folks often do not do this option to say a summary of what was broken off - just not what the parent wants. Third, what is at the style article lead just is not a summary of that article. And fourth, this article already has text -- so no need to consider options for wording questions already solved. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC) reply

(edit break)

In terms of vote count, with that change it's now 10-10, a dead heat. In terms of arguments, more or less all the editors opposed argue that no mass shooting should be mentioned unless it was committed with a Colt AR-15. On the other hand, this article has a section about AR-15 style rifles in general, and that's where the edit was. No argument has been advanced for why that section should not mention the mass shootings in which (non-Colt) AR-15 rifles were used, other than "that's not the way I want(ed) it." The argument for inclusion is very clear - those mass shootings are mentioned in the lead of the main AR-15 style article, and for a good reason - they are extremely notable, and leaving them out would be a violation of NPOV. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

You are wrong about "other than that's not the way I want it". It's entirely reasonable to say we don't need to include material that is tangentially related to the subject of the article in this article. As you have been told by several editors, and as the history of the article shows, the AR-15 style rifle section is meant to show how the generic rifle was derived from the Colt rifle. Claiming it was meant to be a summary of the AR-15 style rifle in general is a self serving claim that isn't supported by the edit history of the article and consensus doesn't support making that change to the article. No reason to discuss it further. Springee ( talk) 19:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"the history of the article" (meaning, the way I/other editors wanted it) - why is that even relevant, let alone an argument? Is this article some kind of walled garden that can't be intruded on or changed? That's just not the way wikipedia works.

In an article on Colt AR-15s it clearly makes sense to have a section summarizing AR-15 style rifles in general. The very fact that there is plenty of confusion regarding what is or is not a Colt AR-15 versus "AR-15 style" strengthens that. And if that section is WP:SYNCed to the lead of the AR-15 style article, we can put an end to this seemingly endless debate here. Note that if, at some time, mentions of mass shootings are removed from the lead of the AR-15 style article, they'd be removed here too. So it's a completely neutral proposal in that sense. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

It's like... deja vu... - wolf 20:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, this is very confusing to people who don't know what they are talking about. So, let's make is simple. The "COLT AR-15" is a semi-automatic rifle made by "Colt's Manufacturing Company." The term "AR-15 style rifle" was invented by a handful of Wikipedia editors to describe similar rifles made by other manufactures.-- RAF910 ( talk) 20:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Our article was created on 12/12/12, this [28] is from 2 years before, so no we did not invent the term. Slatersteven ( talk) 07:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• It's 10-10? Guess what? This isn't a vote. "No argument has been advanced for why..."? Except for all the other times we've discussed this. I'll be blunt here: It's pretty arrogant for you to act like no previous discussions happened. The simple fact is that you've really brought nothing new to the table, yet you demand everyone jump through all your hoops. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"It's 10-10? Guess what? This isn't a vote." My point precisely, thanks for agreeing. The vote is a tie, but the arguments in favor of inclusion (or simply syncing) are much stronger. Anyway, when I get around to it I will take this to a larger audience at the village pump, so there's not much point in continuing to discuss it here now. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

What I "agree" with is that there's no consensus to add what you want. Now you resort to forum shopping. No shocker there. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

As you've already be told, that could be considered forum shopping. And, as you've also already been told, it would probably be more advisable for you to request an uninvolved admin (at WP:ANRFC) to review the discussion here and determine if there is a consensus. Actually, anybody could do that, and in fact, if someone were to go do that, like right now, it just might help bring this... situation... to an end. (I'd do it myself, but... I got a... thing... at the... whatsis... so... busy). - ^theWOLFchild 20:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC) reply

AS I see it the above conversation has drawn to a close, we know who thinks what. Now we either need fresh input or an admin to make a decision as to which side has achieved consensus. So it seems to me we either have an RFC to attract fresh eyes (I would prefer there to be an understanding that those of us who have already expressed an opinion are assumed to hold the same opinion unless they change it, so as to not glog up the RFC with the same arguments), or we close. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply