Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International

message: 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 with this similar news item?  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I've already explained why that is not the case. On the contrary, WP:GUNS outlines precisely why this should not be included in the article. WP:GUNS says nothing about "crimes that stimulate political debate" being the exception. Actually, every mass shooting is followed by public debate, but in most cases (including this one) it's not exactly relevant or notable. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has its own article, Zeamays. The information you're seeking can be found there. ROG5728 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, Rog. The actual "consensus" you cite states, "Criminal use 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 ... Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased.... As per WP:UNDUE, editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject".  That is clearly fulfilled in this case, which has upset the entire nation for the past week and has lead to a new interest in changes to the law. Just because you do not agree with the other side of the debate is no reason to deny these facts, Rog.  Wikipedia wants both side aired. --Zeamays (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

text: We disagree.  In the event of a serious debate, which this is, Wikipedia policy is to include both sides in the article.  --Zeamays (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Including both sides would mean documenting the many hundreds/thousands of cases over the years where American 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. If you would like to "include both sides" in the article, that would mean mentioning how millions of Americans use Bushmaster products for hunting, sport shooting, and self defense purposes. However, you're obviously just wanting to include one side in the article, and it isn't particularly notable information at this point anyway. ROG5728 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making a reductio ad absurdum argument, a fallacy in the case of an issue that is a matter of degree.  Also, we aren't discussing self-defense, but your attempts to delete relevant, notable facts from an article.  We aren't discussing the popularity of the Bushmaster, and please feel free to add such information if you have documented statistics; nor are we discussing the unnotable murders committed with it, although statistics would be helpful here.  Nor is this an article about the AR-15, but about the particular Bushmaster product used in a specific mass murder. If you want to discuss self-defense with this specific weapon, go ahead and do so.  When the article is unprotected, please feel free to include your side, if your material is documented, relevant and noteworthy.  --Zeamays (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I will, but we still have yet to agree that your material is even relevant and noteworthy. I (and others) maintain that it is not. In the meantime, let me point out that assassinations of prominent figures are not at all analogous to this case. ROG5728 (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why assasination is different from mass murder in terms of notoriety.  Once agin, Lennon was not a political figure, so his killing was not an assassination.  As I have tried to explain to you, the reason why an instrument of death should be cited in an article regarding the instrument is that the killing is notable, see wp:notability.  This point extends beyond firearms to any instrument of death, deliberate or accidental.  See, for example, the articles on Zyklon B, Elixir sulfanilamide, and Fat Man. --Zeamays (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Rebuttal:  1) Future changes in gun laws have no bearing on the issue of mentioning misuse of the Bushmaster product in a notorious crime. 2) This is not an article about "Long guns in general", but about a specific company and its products.  3) Your statistics (not referenced) are irrelevant to this particular company and its products. 4) The single example of the Texas tower shooting is outweighted by the many examples I cited earlier, where the article on the instrument of death does cite one or more crimes committed with it. 5) Wikipedia routinely covers breaking events. 5) Cerberus Capital Management  has made plans to sell its share in the Bushmaster company because of this notorious crime. --Zeamays (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Murder Weapon 

message: Hi Miguel, I have a couple of questions: (feel free to answer in one post or break up your answers under each section number)
1) Could you explain what you mean by "single point event"?
2) Why do you believe that a change in gun law is a factor in adding the information about the Sandy hook shooting?
3) You admit "The existing article on the Sandy Hook shooting already identifies what firearms were used, as it should, with links to the relevant gun articles, as it should." but, you still think that "It is still entirely too early to put in more detail of what is clearly an evolving impact, relative to the Bushmaster Firearms International article." That appears to contradict itself. If the shootings are already linked to this article and yet has little to no real mention here, is that not going against the consensus of the community that broad coverage of this event be covered in this article?
4) You have also said: "Doing so would only clutter the article with gun politics viewpoints, better served by their inclusion (which are already there) in other articles." Not including the information would be a point of view exclusion based on politics. This is also unacceptable. Why is your POV more important than a neutral article that includes a broad coverage of the subjct?
5) My last question is about the statement "major financial impact on BFI" How is that relevant to the exclusion of this material? It would apear that your only concern there is that there be a "financial impact". That is also a POV and would seem to assume that the only reason to mention any controversial aspects of manufacturing of semi automatic assualt rifles by the compnay should only include those that can be demonstrated to have such an impact and ignores any other aspect but money. Can you demonstrate that as being encyclopedic?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: The definition of 'massacre':
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre
1. The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the norms of civilized people.
The definition of 'shooting':
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shooting
1. An instance of shooting (a person) with a gun. Police are hunting the people who carried out the shootings last week.
IMHO, what happened at Sandy Hook School better fits the definition of a massacre.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.13.205 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Massacre versus Shooting

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, the article should reflect the correct number of fatalities at the school. --Zeamays (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the number killed in Newtown 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of 2010 Bushmaster lawsuit 

message: http://pun.org/pix/bushmaster.jpg is protected under Creative Commons non-commercial/attribution/share-alike, and I see no attribution to me or my blog posting http://pun.org/josh/archives/2005/02/bushmaster-xm15.html for that picture.
Joshua R. Poulson  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirgall (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumbnail picture not correctly attributed 

message: I inserted some continuity info into the editwar-torn landscape of this article, which (apparently) has seen much of its connective tissue excised. In so doing, I also changed the original meaning slightly, which change I notate here: before my edit, it stated that Freedom Group was to be sold because of the use of one of its products [sic] in the Sandy Hook shooting. I changed this to reflect what the PR actually says: it was because of the publicity about the gun's use, not the use itself. Also, I changed "product" to the slightly more specific form, "gun". Hope nobody wants to war over this. :) Eaglizard (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight change in meaning

message: I have to say that I agree with Use KeithBob's re-configuration of the article. It shows just how much the article needed to fixed and correctly oriented as one about the company. One thing that I felt was OK to include was the list of guns that the company currently (or in the past) manufacturers. If the company were to cease operations, this information would be of interest to future readers. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support! I like organization and sections but it can also be overdone as was the case in the is article. I don't see any problem with having a list of the gun models the company offers.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  19:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent article overhaul 

message: I broke out the products like I did for archival sake. If in 5 or 10 years someone owns a Bushmaster and would like to know more about it, I was just trying to make it easier to understand its context in the overall production by the company. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bushmaster Firearms International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121216082918/http://news.yahoo.com/rifle-conn-massacre-similar-dc-022700609.html to http://news.yahoo.com/rifle-conn-massacre-similar-dc-022700609.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011123846/http://bushmaster.com/ to http://bushmaster.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bushmaster Firearms International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231184219/http://www.keepmecurrent.com/lakes_region_weekly/business/article_a8f0524a-99e6-5257-87ff-6276691f3fe7.html to http://www.keepmecurrent.com/lakes_region_weekly/business/article_a8f0524a-99e6-5257-87ff-6276691f3fe7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160114105220/http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_main_index.asp to http://bushmaster.com/catalog_main_index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011123846/http://bushmaster.com/ to http://bushmaster.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified