Talk:SIG MCX/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

RFC: Should a firearm article encourage shooters to try to "beat the record" with any particular firearm, through exacting a larger death toll than already achieved by an earlier mass shooter with that particular firearm?

No consensus to remove the words "which is the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history". The "Close" comments below are functionally equivalent to disagreeing with the premise of the RFC, and can't be discounted (I note the incorrect interpretation of unanimous agreement below; that is not what has happened here). There are 3 people in favor of removing the words phrase, and 5 people against. Since the wording of Option F seemed to have very broad agreement in the previous RFC, it would require a consensus to remove the phrase, rather than a consensus to keep it. I also note that this RFC was fundamentally flawed, based on the rather extreme non-neutral wording of the question, but it was skewed in favor of removal of the phrase, so the fact that the result was to keep the phrase means that an immediate new RFC is not appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a firearm article encourage shooters to try and "beat the record" with any particular firearm, exacting a larger death toll than already achieved by an earlier mass shooter, by mentioning that a particular firearm was used in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, or should it just say that the firearm was used in a particular mass shooting, without the added sensationalism of adding ", which is the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history."? Background: See for example, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/report-newtown-shooter-researched-several-mass-murderers/ where the shooter researched past mass shootings in an attempt to "beat the record." 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Main section

  • No. A firearm article should not encourage additional mass shooters to rack up more "points" (deaths) with any particular firearm, and thereby create an even larger mass shooting. This is not censorship, as the main shooting article already contains all the death toll details. It is just responsible encyclopedia editing to remove this sort of sensationalism from individual firearm articles. Many mass shooters with mental issues are known to have researched past shootings extensively, before carrying out their own shooting(s), through reviewing firearm reviews and articles, to determine a firearm's suitability for use in a mass shooting. We should not encourage such shooters in Wikipedia's firearms articles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Close per WP:POINT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Close and trout RfC creator. The premise, that a single sentence containing readily-available information in an article on a specific firearm, is going to form the tipping point that makes someone commit a mass shooting, is absurd on its face. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Close, per above. Felsic2 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Close or Cancel 1. Disruptive editing per WP:POINT, the subject was decided in text above. 2. Presenting a point of view; WP presents facts even if disliked. 3. The article stated gives only a speculative theory, no evidence is presented what the shooter was thinking. 4. The data is available in many sources, not only in WP articles. 5. Writing it is OK to state in the incident article, but omit from an article for the gun used in the incident, to prevent a shooter from being "encouraged" seems illogical to me and biased, to prevent making an encyclopedia. 6. You may wish to write a blog for your ideas outside of WP.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it was not decided in the prior RFC. The "worst mass shooting" wording was added after the RFC had started, and after votes had been cast for mentioning the Orlando Pulse shooting. These votes were then counted as supportive of the later addition of "worst mass shooting", too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If your issue is how the results of the poll above was summaried by me, then the simplest thing would be to have a neutral, univolved admin close it. Felsic2 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, but Comment. The problem is not mentioning the shooting, which can be justified on the principle that it is a point of historical of interest of relevance to the weapon. To characterise it in wording such as "encourage shooters" is unnecessarily provocative and even, I should think, counter-productive; it might or might not be regarded as encouraging shooters, but then just mentioning firearms might be seen as no less, and we cannot suppress everything that might be taken as inspiring some nut case somewhere. However, the closing clause, together with its citation and the preceding comma, are not relevant to this article, but to the already (and properly) linked article on the shooting. They should be removed, while the link remains in place. Whether any single future shooting might be inhibited by requiring some shooter-in-preparation to click on a link instead of seeing a throw-away, out-of-context remark directly, is too hypothetical to quibble about. The text should then read: A SIG MCX was used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting
    JonRichfield (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No, due to all the recent mass shootings I think even though wikipedia isn't censored it only seems humane to not include this. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, of course The thing is that IMHO the article in its current state does not really encourage mass shooters. May I understand the rationale of this RfC? Silvio1973 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
With the close of RFC, and consensus not to include the "worst shooting", No, above, this content has been removed from the article. 19:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Escopeta (talk • contribs)
Maybe we should get an admin to close this. The poll above had more participants. Felsic2 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any such consensus above, and you certainly shouldn't be closing your own RfC. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There is not a single vote of YES, to include the "worst mass shooting wording". Rather, there are numerous votes above to remove this wording. Can an admin simply close this RFC and remove the wording, per the RFC which automatically closed today, 30 days after opening? There is no consensus to include the "worst mass shooting wording". It should be removed. Instead of putting it back, and going against consensus. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional link

This article should not include this external link which does nothing more than meritlessly promote the subject. The target material, which starts out "Eclipsing all that's come before it," is not an objective resource.- MrX 21:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting because a few hours ago you said:[1], "Both of these links benefit our readers and meet the WP:MAYBEN#MAYBE 4 criterion.". So which is it?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and when I wrote that, that was my belief. I thought it was third party analysis of the weapon. On further reading, I see that it's merely a website that the manufacturer uses to promote the product. - MrX 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why was this link removed from "Further reading"? "Understanding the Sig Sauer MCX Assault Rifle Used in the Orlando Mass Shooting" One editor said, "not a neutral source"[2] But it's not a source and there's no requirement that sources or links be neutral. I'm not sure that any of the sources in this article are neutral. American Rifleman is a highly political periodical, for example. Further, it was added originally by Mike Searson, [3] and I assume he wasn't trying to push some POV. Another editor wrote "WP:ELNO violating #1, #2, #4, #8, #13".[4] But #1, it does "provide a unique resource", #2 it does not mislead readers, #4 its inclusion was not "mainly intended to promote a website", #8 it does not require any special plugins (PDF is a common file format) and #13 it is "directly related to the subject of the article". So it does not violate any of the provisions of WP:ELNO that were listed. If there's no legitimate reasons for the deletion I'll restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

VPC is not a source. No one is putting American Rifleman in External Links section because it would fail EL criteria. The official MPX web site belongs per ELOFFICIAL. VPC is a political advocacy site that bills itself as "Research, Investigation, Analysis and Advocacy for a Safer America." There is nothing in the specific article about the MCX that is unique and not found in our article so it fails #1. It makes statements that semi-automatic civilian version is more deadly than the military version which is completely false let alone alone misleading. They make the claim it was designed to be shot from the hip which is again false and misleading so fails #2. The purpose and half the article is dedicated towards advocating the policy position of vpc.org on the broader topic of semi-automatic rifles. All of the factual information in that paper is actually available in Wikipedia and the only thing the paper adds is VPC political positions. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia and it fails #4 because including it doesn't add anything but VPC promotional material. EL is usually simple websites and documents should be sources but that VPC produced document is not suitable for a source. ELNO #8 is EL's should not be "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins." PDFs are documents that require an external application or a plugin. "Common" is not an exception. It fails #8 unequivocally. The documents first page says it is This backgrounder offers a brief overview of the Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle, key points about assault weapons, and a discussion about what makes assault weapons different from standard hunting and sporting firearms. This article is only about the Sig MCX. It is not about "key points about assault weapons, and a discussion about what makes assault weapons different from standard hunting and sporting firearms." In fact, the WP article is about both military and civilian versions of the product while the VPC article is largely about the politics regarding even having a civilian version. In fact, it's first "key point" directly contradicts the WP article by stating Semiautomatic assault weapons like Sig Sauer’s MCX are civilian versions of military assault weapons. The Sig MCX carbine is not limited to semi-automatic or civilian use and is available as a select fire (machine gun) version. These false and misleading statements act as a strawman argument that serve the last two-thirds of the paper which is not about the Sig MCX at all but about VPC's position on legal ownership of certain semi-automatic rifles in the U.S. That fails #13 for EL. What fact about the Sig MPX was in the VPC article isn't covered here? --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying that the VPC is political while the NRA is not?
There is lots of information about the weapon in that piece which isn't in this article. Maybe we should just use it as a source instead of as a "further reading" entry.
You're being tendentious if you are claiming that links to PDFs are forbidden. There must be a million of them on Wikipedia. Let's go ask at the EL noticeboard for an opinion. If you're wrong we can put it back.
The semi-automatic MCX is indeed a civilian version of a select-fire weapon. Why do you think otherwise. Felsic2 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is about military and civilian versions. A statement that the MCX is a semi-automatic assault weapon is false. There are select fire and military versions. It failed ELNO in multiple places. If there is a fact in that report, please list it. And no, a PDF from the NRA should not be in the EL section. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Are PDFs allowed in "Further reading" or "External links" sections? Felsic2 (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added some material sourced to the VPC report, adding the HTML page (not the PDF) as the link. That was reverted without discussion,[5] presumaby due to a misreading of this discussion which concenred its use as a "further reading" entry. If we use NRA publications as sources, then I don't see why we'd exclude sources from a different viewpoint. Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Why would you reference company statements taken from a company catalog to a VPC source? The original source is here [[6]]. Wikipedia sourcing policies and guidelines request that we use the best, most direct source for quotes and the like when possible. In this case the company catalog is clearly the original source of the quote. That said, I'm not sure what that information adds to the overall article. That brings up a second concern. The trivial nature of the material sourced to a politically active and controversial source reeks of coat racking via linking. If the VPC article has a meaningful contribution to make to this article I would suggest making a case for the specific material and discussing it here rather than trying to insert it as was just done. If it doesn't bring any unique information to the table, drop it from the article Springee (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Secondary sources are the best available. But I'll use the catalog as a source if you prefer it.
The place where the gun was designed and is built seems significant. The marketing claims also seem significant. Those are both "unique" pieces of information, not otherwise included inthe article. They are relevant. Felsic2 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Secondary sources aren't always the best available. In this case the claim is that a company catalog says X. The best source for that fact is the company catalog, not a secondary source. This is also true if we are saying "the NRA/VPC says X". Please see WP:PRIMARY. Springee (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources not about MCX

"H&K confirms: This is the Army's new and improved sniper rifle" has been added as a source,[7] but it doesn't mention SIG or MCX. A good way of preventing "coatrack" issues is to require that all the sources actually mention the topic of the article. Otherwise we're likely to start adding miscellaneous tangents. Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed it. Felsic2 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
And I have added it back in, as it is relevant to the H&K G28 being chosen for the CSASS instead. Also, you deleted two sources, one of which is all about the MCX-MR. RadiculousJ (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Then find a source that shows it's relevant by mentioning the MCX. Felsic2 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
"H&K confirms: This is the Army's new and improved sniper rifle" may not mention SIG Sauer or the MCX, but it is relevant because it (correctly) states that the H&K G28 won CSASS, and the MCX-MR was SIG Sauer's entry for CSASS. RadiculousJ (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't about the CSASS. The winner of that competition has no bearing on this article. All that matters here is that the MCX lost. Felsic2 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware this article isn't about CSASS, but I really don't see why what won CSASS can't be included. Also, it is currently my opinion against your's. It would be better if there was a concensus, either way. RadiculousJ (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If there's no consensus, and if the source doesn't even mention the topic of this article, then it;d seem like the standard is to remove it. Felsic2 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Not encyclopedic"

What does this mean? Is there a definition for "encyclopedic content?"[8] If not, I'll restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoring the information with no sourcing comes across as a petty act. I hope that wasn't the intent but it offer the impression. Springee (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The source is the VPC and the MCX catalog. Since no one has explained how or why this information is "not encyclopedic", or explained how the VPC, which is widely cited by mainstream new sources, isn't reliable, I'll restore it, with source. Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The source is the SIG catalog, VPC (and others) are simply quoting the catalog. Please use the most direct source, not one with a very strong bias. Using the VPC as a source rather than the obvious catalog where the quotes originated suggests you are trying to reference stack as a way to get around NPOV and other guidelines which limit how sources should be used in articles. Springee (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
NPOV says to include all viewpoints. VPC is no more based than the NRA. WP:PSTS says that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. Using both sources avoids any issues of reliability and synth (in case anyone thinks that a particular quote from the cataolg is cherry-picked). Felsic2 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Not that I would agree with your claim regarding the reliability of VPC but that isn't what's at issue here. WP:RS, "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted.". The material in question is a quote from a Sig catalog. The Sig catalog is the original source. Springee (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, we can disagree about that. I'll go ahead and restore the material just using the SIG catalog as a source. Felsic2 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why you couldn't have done it yourself, but whatever. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
"I'll go ahead and restore the material just using the SIG catalog as a source." I took that to mean you were going to make the change. Springee (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, see WP:PEACOCK. Parroting the manufacturer's claim that the rifle will "provide elite shooters with the complete weapon systems they need to prevail under any circumstance" adds nothing to a real understanding of the subject, and is doubly inappropriate in the lede (which is meant to summarize to the body). VQuakr (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, I agree with cutting the material down. That said, since the material is a quote from the catalog it should cite the catalog per WP:PSTS. Springee (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Springee: WP:PSTS doesn't say anything like that. Do you mean WP:SAYWHERE? That guideline makes clear that if I read a secondary source that quotes a primary source, I should reference the actual source I verified. VQuakr (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@VQuakr:, sorry! Yes, that was the wrong link. I should have said WP:RS. "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted.". Springee (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Makes sense, with the caveat that that assumes the original source is available to the article author for verification. Secondary source(s) are also useful for assessing WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have the original catalog that contains this text? If not, I'll restore it using the previous citation, to the Violence Prevention Center. Felsic2 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Felsic2: Right here. RadiculousJ (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't see the quoted text in that catalog. Maybe my search function isn't working right. Do you know which page it's on? Felsic2 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest the following search terms for Google, "sig mcx engineered from the ground up to be short, light and silenced new Hampshire". You will see this link for the 2016 catalog (vs the 2015 above) [[9]]. It contains the quote. It really wasn't hard to find. Springee (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. So now we have two sources: a primary and a secondary. Those should be sufficient to adress any sourcing concerns. Any other objections? Felsic2 (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite my request to discuss it here the edit has been reverted, with this comment: "Per earlier editor comment, removed PEACOCK as well as COATRACK source" @Springee:. Could you please say what part of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COATRACK you're thinking of as the basis for your deletion? PEACOCK says to attribute subjective descriptions, not to omit them. COATRACK says to avoid including material that's only barely related to the topic of the article. Neither of those seem to apply to this material. Please explain. Felsic2 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think the material needs to be in the article at all? The sort of statements in that section would be best sourced from reviews of the guns from expert reviewers rather than from an anti-gun political action group. Your efforts to add the VPC to the article using innocuous material cited to a strongly biased source certainly looks like coatracking. As for PEACOCK, well ask the editor who first removed the material as PEACOCK. Springee (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The material belongs in the article for the same reason that all the other material belongs: it's about the subject of the article. Just like automobile articles, including manufacturer claims is standard procedure.
VPC is an expert on gun issues. It is a well-regarded group that whose reports and studies are often cited in mainstream news sources. It is no more biased then "The Truth About Guns", Recoil, Guns & Ammo, and other sources used in the article.
As for PEACOCK, you're the one who cited it and COATRACK when deleting sourced material, so it's up to you to justify your intention. Felsic2 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If the issue is "including manufacture claims" then we should source them to the manufacture, not to an anti-gun advocacy organization. It is only your opinion that the VPC is an expert on anything including guns. It would be less of a stretch if you were trying to use the opinion of the VPC as to why this gun should be illegal/more regulated or why features of this gun are problematic. Instead you are attempting to use the VPC to support a claim the manufacture made in a catalog. PEACOCK was suggested, and I would tend to agree, because we don't need to include too much in the way of manufacture marketing. We have enough, perhaps more than enough as is. COATRACKing happens when material or references in an inappropriate fashion to push a POV. We have a relatively innocuous if somewhat marketing hype statement made by the manufacture (and easily sourced to the manufacture) yet you want to cite it to an anti-gun organization that otherwise wouldn't be mentioned in the article. COATRACK. Springee (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, please describe what part of PEACOCK covers this issue. I think you're minsinterpreting it. As for the sources, if the VPC is a problem, which I dispute, we can just use the catalog as the cite. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The proposed quote is that the subject will, according to the manufacturer, "provide elite shooters with the complete weapon systems they need to prevail under any circumstance." That isn't useful encyclopedic information; it is worthless marketing-speak (aka puffery) that has no business being in the article. We've talked through a number of policies and guidelines and how they may or may not apply, but ultimately this is really a tone issue that is subject to editorial discretion. Also: in this meandering thread we've discussed more than one quote. To avoid confusion it probably should be helpful to discuss separate quotes in separate threads, using more descriptive and content-oriented subject lines than, for example, the one at the start of this subsection. VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturer's claims

Much of this article is sourced, ultimately or directly, to the manufacuter. It is they who assert its weight and measurements for example - I doubt anyone here would claim that those are independently verified by 3rd party sources. Among the maker's claims are those in its catalogs and brochures, including this material:

  • A catalog says it was designed in order to "provide elite shooters with the complete weapon systems they need to prevail under any circumstance."[1][2]

A 3rd party source, the Violence Policy Center, found this line to be noteworthy enough to quote. It addresses the issue of how the firearmr is marketed. Material on the marketing of a commercial product to the public is just as deserving of inclusion as whether it got a government contract. Felsic2 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Violence Policy Center is a gun control advocacy organisation, and not a reliable source for what you try to use them for, so stop trying to push them here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Are they unreliable when they quote the manufacturer's catalog? Are we only allowed to cite pro-gun publications, like the NRA's American Rifleman, in articles about guns? Or are all viewpoints allowed? Felsic2 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. This is coatracking via external linking. Springee (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You keep referring to WP:COATRACK, but you won't say what part of that page you're citing. I don't think it says what you think it says. Felsic2 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It is perfectly reasonable to source noncontentious information such as weights and dimensions to the manufacturer unless there is some reason to think the manufacturer is an unreliable source for this information. That's completely different than including marketing fluff. An encyclopedia article should provide information about a firearm, not a "complete weapon system". VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think using a manufacturing catalog for specifications as a primary source is alright, but not for sales opinions like."provide elite shooters..". If there are opposing reliable secondary sources that provide opposing opinions about the gun, that is alright per WP:NPOV. CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
This isn't contentious information. No one, other than Wikipedia editors, disputes that this is what the manufacturer says. In fact, articles on firearms do typically include a range of components that make up a "weapon system", such as scopes, bayonets, etc. Perhaps all marketing is fluff, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the story of the product. We include marketing information on many products on Wikipedia, such as how movies are marketed, for example. Felsic2 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If "prevail under any circumstance" becomes the next "Where's the beef?", then we should revisit the decision to exclude it. 'Til then, let's be an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That gets back to the "Not encyclopedic" question raised but not answered above. What is "encyclopedic"? What should an encyclopedia include? There are entire encyclopedias devoted to marketing.[10] I can only judge this encyclopedia's intent by its existing content and its content policies. Which of them discourage or prohibit including manufacturer's claims or positioning statements? Felsic2 (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Felsic2 I think "provide elite shooters..". is a manufacturer's biased opinion, not a proven claim with evidence. If you wish to add the manufacture states: "provide elite shooters.." and give other opinions I think that is alright by WP:NPOV. I would go by content policies (which are subjective), the content in articles could be inconsistent, incomplete or violating policies (again subjective).CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Felsic2: WP:SELFSOURCE. Marketing fluff is unduly self-serving. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Exp lead with material from the article; streamline infobox; c/e; reduce See also - largely unneeded; rm self-cited & promotional detail". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of content

2605:a000:1407:8007:9d25:2c51:df31:7db, can we please discuss your section deletion? It was cited material and relevant to the article. Aspening (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring / Page protected

Time to stop this revert cycle, it appears there is an editorial question if a section should be included on this page or not and emotions seem to be getting a bit high. Reverting back and forth is not going to fix anything, and I'm not a big fan of blocking people unnecessarily so have applied a short term protection to channel a discussion here. The core of the dispute appears to be if content on the Orlando incident is relevant to this article or not, and this talk page is where to come to a consensus on that. On a related note, if this section is kept, I suggest editing the citation markup to make it clear to readers that the reliable source is not "facebook.com" but the actual source (since that is how it displays in the references section). Please discuss and when the short term protection is up revisit the page. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Xaosflux: please restore the content deleted by the IP. As you note, 3 other editors reverted them. The content should be included per WP:DUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    As is generally the case, The Wrong Version is probably the one there now, please discuss editorial content here. I have left this matter open at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring for an uninvolved admin to re-review and modify this protection if they see fit. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux, in this case I think confirmed editors only is the correct level of protection. The IP editor was the only warring party. Also there was a RfC that favored inclusion [[11]]. Unless we feel the RfC closing was improper I would say it should be restored. Springee (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Springee: thank you for the link to the prior discussion, it appears that consensus for this inclusion has already been determined so feel free include. Please see my note above about making it clear to readers that the source is reliable, may be just a tweak in the markup. — xaosflux Talk 14:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Protection lifted, note left at editing warring noticeboard for additional follow up. — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux Accusing registered users of "edit warring" was strange, especially when the content's inclusion had already been decided. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    @K.e.coffman: Please note, as Springee pointed out that the editorial question was previously reviewed in Talk:SIG_MCX/Archive_1#RFC:_Is_the_Orlando_shooting_relevant?, I've unprotected. I don't really like the term "warring" but it gets used a lot around here, there was certainly an inappropriate revert cycle occurring (which I hadn't yet seen the link at the "warring" Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring noticeboard). My section header was not meant to be an accusation towards anyone. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

As discussed above, there is current consensus to include the Orlando shooting. Please discuss before removing this content. –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in SIG MCX

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of SIG MCX's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

Reference named "Bishop":

Reference named "WG":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

“Assault rifle” and Orlando shooting

Please do not remove that the Sig MCX is an assault rifle; consensus shows that its construction and usage as a select-fire assault rifle by certain military and law enforcement entities earns it that title. Consensus also agrees that the portion on the Orlando shooting is legitimate and valuable to an encyclopedic entry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the consensus on the "assault rifle" terminology? Should be sourced. Agreed on the section blanking. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The article mentions a select fire, military only version of the rifle. That would qualify as an assault rifle. If the term is in the article it needs to be qualified as it only applies to the military customer only model. Springee (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@VQuakr, the discussion in question is archived and can be found under the title "Assault rifle?" here: Talk:SIG MCX/Archive 1. I am also a little bit bothered by this description of the weapon as, from what I have seen in the tertiary sources, appears to be primarily marketed in its semi-automatic, US civilian-legal non-assault rifle form. However, as others seem to disagree reasonably, I say we keep as is. Will seek improved sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I don't see an issue if we don't include the term. Springee (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Country of origin

There appears to be some confusion as to the origin of the MCX rifle, specifically the country from which it originated. An IP editor (2a02:2455:322:ab00:30da:d1bc:4bf1:7ee2) is of the persuasion that the rifle is of German origin, as the parent company of SIG USA (the MCX's designer and manufacturer) is German. While this is a compelling argument, the rifle itself was developed in the United States and is primarily constructed in the United States. While an international parent company might own SIG USA, it is not merely a brand but rather a fully-operational semi-autonomous business with its own research and development team, as well as an independent manufacturing and product line. I will be providing sourcing relevant to the rifle's origin in the article and reverting the edits from the IP. Please discuss here if you find these edits insufficient. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Separate out the two different families of firearms

We should have separate pages for the small and large versions, I propose that we move info about the 7.62 NATO class firearm and variants to SIG MCX SPEAR while leaving the 5.56 NATO class firearm here. They are for all intents and purposes two different rifles, as different as the AR-15 and AR-10, and much of what we have now only describes the 5.56 NATO class firearm. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree on grounds of MPX distinction and recent proliferation of MCX Spear-specific info. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

History / Mass shooting ??

Never seen that before in a history section of a firearm - AK-47 doesn't mention North Hollywood shootout... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:14F8:A615:A11A:AC92 (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times, and inclusion is based on the media coverage that included reference to the rifle's use in the shooting. Also, the North Hollywood Shootout shouldn't be mentioned on the page for the AK-47–a Chinese rifle of the same general platform was used instead. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Now a service rifle?

Do I understand this is now the M-5 and has been adopted as the standard (Army) infantry rifle? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the m-5 is based on a completely different but related rifle the SIG MCX Spear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. PaulinSaudi (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Violence Policy Center Backgrounder on Sig Sauer MCX Assault Rifle Used in the Orlando Mass Shooting". Violence Policy Center. June 16, 2016. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
  2. ^ https://www.sigsauer.com/upFiles/CmsContent/documents/2016-SIG-SAUER-FULL-LINE-CATALOG.pdf 2016-SIG-SAUER-FULL-LINE-CATALOG
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_MCX/Archive_2&oldid=1125109233"