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)

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)

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)

The guideline you just quoted flat out contradicts you. Legislation has not been passed as a result of the gun's usage in this incident, and it's far too early to say if the weapon's notoriety will be greatly increased; a brief blurb in the media doesn't count for anything in the long run. The fact that this incident has "upset the entire nation for the past week" is completely irrelevant to our discussion and it obviously fails to satisfy the WP:GUNS notability criteria. A push for gun control isn't noteworthy either unless there is legislation that actually passes (which remains to be seen). ROG5728 (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The relevant "recent event" may very well cause changes in gun laws. But, until it does, this is still just a single point event, horrible though it was. Long guns in general are not used repeatedly in mass shootings. The actual number in terms of percentage is around 1-2%, depending on whose study you read, of mass shootings in which long guns were used. The Texas clock tower shooting was done with an M1 Carbine. But, no changes in gun laws relative to the M1 Carbine occurred due to that shooting. 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. 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. Doing so would only clutter the article with gun politics viewpoints, better served by their inclusion (which are already there) in other articles. That being said, I don't see any problem with including the lawsuit details from the Washington Beltway shooter in this article, as it clearly had a major financial impact on BFI. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Arbitrary break

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)

Massacre versus Shooting

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)

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)

Yes, the article should reflect the correct number of fatalities at the school. --Zeamays (talk) 23:42, 20 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)

Nick-D, the debate above boils down to this: a few editors who have a particular point of view wish to exclude information about the misuse of the Bushmaster product in a notorious crime that has lead to a major public debate in the United States. Many other Wikipedia articles about manufacturers of various products discuss instances of misuse of the product or public tragedies that resulted. They cite a "consensus" view that uniquely demands that such articles in the case of firearms be subject to very high standards of notoriety. I do not necessarily agree with that consensus, but in this case, those high standards are clearly met or exceeded. I have pointed this out, but the opponents instead of debating the merits just keep citing the reference over and over, without addressing the question of the degree of notoriety required. Given the lack of real movement in this debate, I request that the protection be extended beyond the initial 72 hours. --Zeamays (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Extending the protection further is only necessary if the edit warring resumes. I'm not seeing a case to extend the protection preemptively as I'd like to think that the involved editors won't edit war. If edit warring does resume protection could be reapplied, or the edit warring editors could be blocked temporarily (as a reminder, everyone should note note that you don't need to make four reverts to be blocked for edit warring in instances where this forms part of a longer disagreement). You can ask for a second opinion on extending the protection via a report at WP:RFPP if you like though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and proceeded to file a notice on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thanks, --Zeamays (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Sandy Hook shooting is mentioned here because a huge number of other public media, in the US and abroad, draw a connection between that event and the Bushmaster company. In this context, a link to the concrete product Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine would make sense as well, IMHO. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The owner of Bushmaster International, private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, indicated in a press release it would sell the company, indicating the decision to sell the company stemmed from the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Conn. “It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level.”

A note about the DR/N filing

		The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Olive Branch
		Hello. I am Amadscientist a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have begun an overview of the dispute but wish to take a minute to remind editors of a few things. First. "un-registered" users, also known as IP editors are editors. Treat them with the same manner of respect you would any other editor in this discussion. Second, a friendly reminder that local consenus does not override the consensus of the general community and WikiProjects do not create policy or guidelines or control articles in any manner. The editors involved determine consensus as far as what to accept from the suggestions of the projects. I may have a few more reminders but this is simply to make sure the discussion stays on course. We await the opening statements from all participants before we begin the discussion. Please do not post in the discussion area until all editors have made their opening. Thank you and happy editing. Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

One last thing. I touched on this above but should elaborate. Please do not cite WP:GUN guidelines during the dispute as a reasoning against real policy and guidelines. Project guides are manual of style suggestions for subjects under their scope and hold no weight in a dispute. Local consensus cannot overide a larger community consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am another DRN volunteer and let me second and supplement what Amadscientist has said: WP:GUN guildlines cannot be used as authority to resolve this matter as they are neither a policy or guideline and, per the consensus policy decisions or standards set in Wikiprojects are not binding on the encyclopedia unless they are elevated to policies or guidelines. I'd also add that the subject of notability is also being tossed about and that it, too, is irrelevant to this dispute: notability only determines whether articles should or should not be included in WP, not what content should or should not go into articles. Finally, one final thing: please be very careful not to discuss one another's motives. Here at WP, we judge edits, not editors. If POV is to be discussed, that POV must discernible and discussed only in relation to the content of edits, not the motivations behind those edits. Discussion or allegations or remarks about editor's motivations is not allowed at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears this case has quickly gone stale as only three participants have made openings. If after 48 hrs there is no further input the case is subject to closing. Since that point comes in about two hours, if no further openings are made I will be closing the case tomorrow afternoon. This gives some time for others to weigh in, and as at least one editor recieved a notice late (I had to manually notify) the extra time is needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, there were three editors last night with openings. Today a fourth made an opening but admits to being surprised for being listed and has little interest and feels they are "fairly uninvolved in this dispute" but seems to support the additon as not being controversial. The filing editor also listed an uninvolved admin who removed themself. Of the three (edit-added) four, two are for the addition and one seems (edit-added) two seem to be against, but have offered no reasoning to policy. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, (edit-added) and dropping of policy tags or links with no reasoning to how they apply says nothing. It appears there may already be a rough consensus to add the Sandy Hook information (edit-added) So, with the edited changes I just made to my post, the closing still stands. Most agree that the shooting is more than notable enough, with one editor doubting the "long-term interest in the Sandy Hook incident as a significant factor in the history of Bushmaster Arms". The problem is, that in itself is an assumption. (edit-adding) Another editor, adding: "it's far too early to say whether it will have any notable long term impact on Bushmaster as a manufacturer". Again an assumption. Closing for lack of participation and rough consensus appearing to already exist (edit-adding) from the few that showed up.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On the DR/N page I count two editors who made comments for the addition (Zeamays and Phiwum) and two editors against it (myself and MatthewVanitas). One of the editors who supported the addition (Phiwum) also admitted he was uninvolved in the discussion. I wouldn't call that a rough consensus for inclusion; if anything, it's a rough consensus against it (two editors to one). You'll also note that another editor (Miguel Escopeta) has subsequently commented here on the talk page (after the DR/N) and also voiced opposition to the addition. ROG5728 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I had to go back and yes, I did forget about your post as against the inclusion. Although you're not going to like this. I was dismissing both arguments as they were not very well thought out and didn't make clear what policy they were based on or how. You can't just argue it violates an essay and you can't just post a link without some explanation as to why. Notablity? Oh, come on. This was one of the worst shooting in US history. There is notability. This seems more like what the two of you like and don't like. But I am not closing with resolved or failed. In other words, I feel that the two of you, Mat and Rog have not demonstrated your position in your openings. No disrespect to Miguel Escopeta, but the editor was not a part of the dispute. In fact.....I don't think there really is a dispute from the filing or the discussion. I think that the article itself shows that there has been edit warring. Should you add the information? If I went from just the dispute and the lack of interest and lack of a cohesive argument against...I would say yes, there is a rough consensus. But with an additional voice this can change. But agin, this is not a formal opinion in anyway. Just that the filing probably made poor choices as to who to include and the openings were not convincing.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ROG5728, I believe this will probably end back up at DR....but one way to resolve this is to create a formal, neutrally worded RFC and place a notice to each of the appropriate projects, and the Sandy Hook article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments have a character limit, as you know, so the opening comments at DR/N were brief by necessity. No one is disputing the notability of the shooting as a standalone topic; rather, we are disputing the notability with regards to this article and Bushmaster as a company. In other words, we don't think the shooting is relevant to this specific article. This article is about Bushmaster Firearms International, the company, not the gun; and it remains to be seen if this incident has any further relevance to Bushmaster as a company. Even so, the article already has an indirect mention of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the lede, so I don't understand why anything more needs to be added. Maybe I've misunderstood Zeamays all along, but I was under the impression he wanted to do that. I guess maybe he was just asking that the current text be kept; if so, I can agree to that. I can't agree to going into even more detail on mass murder in this article, though, because it doesn't seem to be directly relevant to the topic of this article (Bushmaster Firearms International) and it doesn't seem in the best interest of neutrality to spend most of the lede in this article talking about mass murder incidents (for no other reason than to be able to say we did). There are separate articles for Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, you know. ROG5728 (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ones ability to use brevity and still make their point is upon those individual editors. Had you attempted to show the relevance to each link it might have been accepted (trust me, I am about the only volunteer that would have allowed more than the 2000 characters), although clearly asking you not to cite the project guide was not heeded as the request not to cite essays went equaly unheeded by the other editor. If you both had not disregarded the advice of two seperate volunteers and used your character limits to indulge in your own unqualified opinions instead of qualifying your assertions of the cited guidelines, you may well have had room enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that ROG5728 doesn't appear to understand the definition of consensus, which means common agreement, not a winner-take-all vote.

I have had additional support on my talk page from an editor who didn't submit to the dispute resolution page. I have now edited the base article to correct an error in the stated reason Cerberus decided to divest Bushmaster in a new section on the divestiture --Zeamays (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would echo what some have said here. Local consenus does not override community consensus. WikiProjects do not create policy or guidelines, or control articles in any manner. The wikiproject position, cited as the main reason for exclusion, has no such effect whatsoever. Essays are similarly not what we rely on -- they are the opinion of one or more editors, but not evidence of community consensus. Having read through the discussions on the talkpage, I think it appropriate to include mentions in this article of the notable shootings and or arrests with RS articles mentioning the use of this particular firearm -- certainly the two this month, as well as Woodson.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnail picture not correctly attributed

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)

Slight change in meaning

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) NB: The article is devoid of discussion of the purchase by Cerberus or the merger into Freedom Group, but it does reference both of these events indirectly. Hence the need to insert material. Someone might improve the article further by including a brief section on the topic I just mentioned...Eaglizard (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I also deleted about half the info under the Dissapator heading, since it was 4 times the length of any other model's sub-section. Without any knowledge of the field, I assumed that Bushmaster's design using the second (shaved?) block is a noteworthy innovation, but removed extraneous references to other stuff. However, I note that this entire section is uncited, and may be completely OR. I'm just copyediting. Eaglizard (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent article overhaul

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)

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)

Products

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)