Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Epeefleche (talk | contribs) |
→Lloyd Woodson: comment |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:Just my thoughts. Best.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
:Just my thoughts. Best.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::I am afraid this is just another article that has fallen victim to [[WP:COAT|coatracking]] in relation to the Woodson article and the clear agenda being pursued by those editors involved with it. <sub><font color="#007700">[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</font></sub><sup><font color="#ff8040">[[User talk:Wjemather|bigissue]]</font></sup> 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:13, 20 March 2010
Maine Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Firearms Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Lloyd Woodson
Please read WP:GUNS#Criminal use. This section is nothing more than trivia. The sources give no indication of why it is relevant in this article. In fact, they only briefly mention Woodson had a Bushmaster rifle. The edit also includes POV wording; a semi-automatic .223 rifle is not "high-powered" and is certainly not an assault rifle. — DanMP5 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Left word on your talk page. But re-reading your note here, points I did not address -- the RSs say that the rifle is high-powered, and that it is an assault rifle. Per wp policy, what is reflected is verifiable (the goal), though I gather from you that experts will say it is incorrect. But reflecting what the RSs say is what wp call for.
- I also note that what you point me to has a tag indicating that it still needs consensus. As such, it is just a proposal in wikiland.
- Also, even if it does attract consensus support, I note that it says "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify)." Here, what makes it notable IMHO is the fact that it was the same gun that led to the DC sniper lawsuit, for which the manufacturer paid half a million dollars ... which was itself notable, as it is reflected in the article.
- Also, the make of the gun was mentioned in many articles, in top level RSs, and in articles that were not just regional, but national and non-U.S. All are generally considered indicia of notablity.
- Just my thoughts. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am afraid this is just another article that has fallen victim to coatracking in relation to the Woodson article and the clear agenda being pursued by those editors involved with it. wjematherbigissue 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)