Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International

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. _wjemather^bigissue 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that WJE is yet again engaging in disruptive editing, just like that which prompted the recent ANI regarding him at which he was roundly criticized, and that his above edit is no-purpose-other-than-disruption edit, just as most that have resulted from his spending his time wikihounding me with disruptive edits have been.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and address this point by point.

The Mass-media, while generally a RS, is not really reliable at all when it comes to firearms. There are many errors in their articles concerning firearms, and they often add those terms ("high powered", assault rifle, and even machinegun) when describing most any semi-automatic rifle in what many say is a pro-gun control agenda.

The text of that guideline has been in its current state for several years, however the tag was added when an editor proposed some minor changes, but that discussion died and a new consensus was never reached, and the tag was never removed.

Are you saying that because Woodson had a rifle made by the same manufacturer as the one used in the notable DC sniper attacks, that this incident is automatically notable in reference to this article also? If so, that logic really fails: So if someone caused an incident with a Carcano that garnered brief media attention, it should be added to the Carcano article, no matter how non-notable the incident, because it was the same rifle used to kill JFK?

Of course the make of the firearm was mentioned in news reports, just like the make of a vehicle involved in a notable accident is mentioned. Does this mean the accident is automatically notable in regards to the vehicle? No, it is little more than another accident in its history. Now if there was something notable about the vehicle itself that caused the accident, such as the recent Toyota mechanical problems, then at least the first accident would most likely be notable in the vehicles article.

All in all, this is just another quasi-notable incident that someone tried to add to a firearm article. I see this all the time, and to be honest; the whole Lloyd Woodson subject is probably the least notable event I've seen someone try to include. You might want to step back for a second and ask yourself "is this really relevant to the subject of this article?"

Cheers. — DanMP5 04:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass Murder Weapon

An editor is repeatedly coat-racking the heck out of this article. What I want to know, is why hasn't he updated the Hyundai wiki article[1] with this similar news item?[2] How would that be much different, huh? Get real. Let's recognize propagandizing and POV-manipulation for what it is!!!BobbieCharlton (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Several editors have restored the factual text regarding the use of the indicated weapon in the recent mass murder in Connecticut. Deletion of these relevant facts constitutes wP:POV. It is not coat-racking, since the focus of the article is unchanged: the company and the use of its products. It is noted that many of the warring deletions were by unregistered editors. --Zeamays (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

By analogy, it is noted that the Wikipedia article on the Carcano rifle mentions the use of the rifle in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and provides a link to a more extensive article on the murder weapon. Likewise, the article about the Philadelphia Derringer contains a description of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and a drawing of the event. --Zeamays (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC) The British Bull Dog revolver article includes a discussion of the Assassination of James A. Garfield, the Iver Johnson article discussed the Assassination of William McKinley, and the Charter Arms article lists several notables murdered or seriously injured with its products, including John Lennon and George Wallace. --Zeamays (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is quite clear on this issue; this incident, unfortunate as it was, does not meet the criteria for inclusion. cheers. L0b0t (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:GUNS is a WikiProject. Quoting directly from the WikiProject page: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles (emphasis added). So while WP:GUNS may provide helpful suggestions for editing this article, it is by no means absolute nor is it WikiPedia policy.72.94.162.159 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again: WP:GUNS#Criminal use is very clear about notoriety. As you well know, this gun is one of several that are being actively discussed for a ban (Assault weapon ban) as a result of this notorius case. The fact is that several editors have edited the text describing the murders to make it more accurate, despite the deletions (see example below), so we can assume they agree that the mention of the crime here is relevant. Finally, your logic regarding automobile fatalities is specious and irrelevant. The other Wikipedia articles on various murder weapons are quite relevant to this case. --Zeamays (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this one, and I don't think the presidential assassination examples are fair precedent (particularly as the Kennedy link to the Carcano is explicitly mentioned in the WP:G#CU policy as a valid example for inclusion). If this incident does lead to significant legal changes, with this incident cited as a key factor, I could see that being a justification for inclusion. However, WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we don't necessarily include things because they might be significant in the future. Further, though I'm not thrilled that WP:G#CU seems to be used as a pro-gun political bludgeon in some cases, I do agree that we need to avoid WP:Recentism; just because this case is highly significant in public attention at the moment doesn't mean it'll be a significant factor in a reader's undersanding of Bushmaster Inc. 12, 24, or 36 months from now. I do however think that we need to de-link the $500K Bushmaster lawsuit from this back-forth, since independent of WP:G#CU I think that's a valid inclusion as significant in the business history of Bushmaster Inc.. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Also as a WP:GUNS contributor and long-time shooter, I submit the WP:G folks bringing in the political canards like "cars kill" and non-AGF comments like "coat racking nonsense" are doing a disservice to WP:G and to their political cause. The 2012 inclusion can be argued to be against WP:G#CU, can be argued to be Recentism, but it was hardly written as "coat racking". If you're exercising WP:Neutrality one should have a hard time figuring out what an editor's personal views are, and spouting political-factional talking points and bumper-sticker slogans is really not helping. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The future outcome of a public debate cannot be a factor in the matter of notability for an article. The debate over Assault weapon ban in which the Bushmaster weapon is a significant part is a major point of public discussion, a discussion that was fueled by the event in Newtown. Hence the reference to the murder weapon in this article is highly relevant and noteworthy. Many articles in Wikipedia cover breaking events. Like those others, if the Newtown event proves in the future to not be notable, the material can be dropped. --Zeamays (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally I do not see why this gun as an identifiable murder weapon cannot and should not have the notorious crimes committed with it mentioned in the article. Although the majority of such mentions are for political assassinations, the murder of John Lennon was not. Consider that the mass murders committed by Nazis with Zyklon B are mentioned in the Zyklon B article. It is not who was killed or how many, but that the murder is notable. --Zeamays (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree about the significance of the 2010 lawsuit, but the addition on the Connecticut shooting is a ridiculous violation of WP:NPOV and WP:GUNS. Any gun used in a high profile shooting is going to receive brief notoriety for it but BRIEF notoriety is irrelevant. Virtually every gun has been used in one or more high profile shootings over the years, but we aren't going to go and note that on every gun article, let alone the manufacturer's main pages. This is an encyclopedia, not a Brady Campaign fansite. ROG5728 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You cited two WP policies, neutrality (NPOV) and wp:guns: Criminal Use, but your interpretation is flatly contradicted by the text in both cases. An earlier editor with your position cited wp:guns: Criminal Use, but its meaning goes against your case. Please read it. It isn't "every gun article" we're discussing, here, just one. You can't seriously believe the killings in Newtown and the resulting societal uproar have not been major news events in the United States. The Bushmaster has been identified in the news non-stop since last Friday. Deleting an unbiased mention of the Newtown murders from this article reflects nothing more than a biased effort to disconnect the weapon from the crime; the motivation to do so is not in the interests of neutrality (NPOV). --Zeamays (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First, it violates WP:OR because you're speculating about the long term notoriety the weapon will have as a result of this. Second, it violates WP:GUNS because it doesn't meet the notability criteria laid out there. Third, it violates WP:NPOV because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a Brady Campaign "weapons of mass murder" gun control blurb. ROG5728 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

These arguments were already been strongly rebutted above. 1) Read what WP:OR says about notoriety and then look at your newpaper; 2) No mention of the Brady Campaign was made until you introduced it. I had a brief look at your homepage, Rog, and from your own statements there, we can conclude you're not a neutral voice on this issue. --Zeamays (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there was any mention of the Brady Campaign in that text. I said it essentially parrots them and adds nothing of any real substance to the article, and for that reason it doesn't belong. ROG5728 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the substance of the arguments. Just registering your position does not constitute an argument or a rebuttal. Wikipedia does not take sides in significant debates; just because you don't agree with one side doesn't give your side the right to eliminate mention of the other side's arguments,right or wrong. --Zeamays (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I haven't turned this into a gun control debate, because that's not what this is about. If that was my intention, I would be trying to list the many hundreds/thousands of cases over the years where citizens have used AR-15 rifles in self defense, but you'll notice we aren't doing that in this article either. You'll also notice the article doesn't point out that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America and it's almost never used in homicides. It would be much better to avoid the inevitable gun control debate altogether in this article and save it for something like the Assault Weapons Ban article. This isn't an issue of factuality, it's an issue of relevance and neutrality. This kind of information is only worth noting when it actually has a significant impact on the weapon itself, and at this point it's too early to say that this incident will have any long term impact on the AR-15. ROG5728 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear to me why you keep bringing in gun control debate material. Rog, you first brought up the Brady Campaign, now you're trying to make irrelevant arguments about the frequency of gun-related crimes. If you want to debate that, there are appropriate forums for you. This article should be factual information on the Bushmaster company and the use of its product, including how it has been used, no different from other Wikipedia articles that discuss the use/abuse of a company's product. Your arguments are specious. Please address the three real questions at hand: 1) Is the inclusion of this mention factual? 2) Is it notorious and significant as recommended by wp:guns: Criminal Use? 3) Is it written to WP:NPOV standards. Please note that another editor (see above) has made the point that, according to wp:Wikiproject, wp:guns: Criminal Use is just a recommendation by a group, not WP policy. --Zeamays (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, the gun control debate is exactly what I am trying to avoid bringing into the article, but your proposed addition would inevitably lead to such a debate. The issue is not factuality, the issue is relevance and neutrality. WP:GUNS may not be an official policy but it was formed by consensus and the intention was to prevent gun articles like this one from giving undue attention to criminal use. ROG5728 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Rog, you're trying to delete the mention for reasons related to your viewpoint. Otherwise, you would have familiarized yourself with the "concensus" you're referencing, wp:guns: Criminal Use, and see that major crimes that stimulate political debate are the exception. Please address that point, if you can. --Zeamays (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

About the number killed in Newtown

The article said that twenty-seven were murdered in a Newtown school. That's not true. Twenty-six were murdered in the school, one was murdered elsewhere and the gunman killed himself (in the school, but that's not murder). I changed the number, but it would be just as good to change the place from the Newtown school to the town of Newtown. Phiwum (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 2010 Bushmaster lawsuit

Setting aside for a moment the WP:GUNS "Criminal use" policy, why was the section == Beltway sniper lawsuit == removed repeatedly? That seems to be a reasonably significant legal incident in the history of the company, criminal incident aside, so I don't quite see why it's been removed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for 72 hours

As this article has been the subject of edit warring on a sensitive topic over recent days I've just fully protected it for 72 hours to allow for dispute resolution. It's good to see that this is already being discussed above, and please let me (or any other admin) know if a consensus is reached before the protection automatically expires. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)