Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipedia coverage of firearms
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:Ping Thanks again for your response. You've convinced me that it's not possible to write a NPOV article with the existing sourcing, so I've requested speedy deletion of the page. Therefore, this DYK nomination should be withdrawn. Catrìona (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Zanhe (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Wikipedia coverage of firearms
- ... that Wikipedia's article on the AR-15 has been criticized for not mentioning the fact that the weapon was used in four of the five largest mass shootings in the United States? Source: [1][2]
- ALT1:... that the Wikipedia page on the AR-15 was viewed more than 200,000 times the day after the 2018 Parkland shooting, but viewers did not find any information on gun control efforts? Source: Same as above, also [3]
- Reviewed: Corps of Invalids (Great Britain)
Created by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 07:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC).
- Hi Catrìona. The article is new enough, long enough, and well-cited. QPQ is done :) I have some concerns about neutrality. The hook ought to reflect the fact that Wikipedia coverage of firearms has been both criticized and defended. Would you consider changing "criticized" to "controversial"? Within the article, I feel the pro-gun POV is not as well-explained as it is in the sources, and the overall tone comes across as an argument for one side. These issues are fixable - look for the best, most intelligent, and most cogent of the other side's arguments and make sure these arguments get across. I'd also leave climate change out of it. Good luck - it's an interesting topic and I'd like to see this on the Main Page. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Template:Ping Thanks for the review. Can you be more specific about what positive information you think should be included in the article? My impression of the sources were that the tone was very negative. I double-checked Google News for articles that had a more positive spin but couldn't find any. Catrìona (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree the tone of the sources is very negative. But from the sources that the article currently has, here are some key arguments for the pro-gun side that could be added (you don't need to include all of them):
- “Mass shootings already have their own articles, all relevant info is, or should be, in that page and not needlessly duplicated on other articles. If we start adding info about just one shooting incident to one tenuously-connected article, we’ll be opening a literal Pandora’s box (figuratively speaking).”
- “The fact that they give the police the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are in does not make the NRA racist”
- "the wider Wikipedia community failing to reach a consensus at the end of a vote on changing it."
- Not included as it's not clear in the article what this is referring to
- "the most detailed criticism came from a Media Matters post, which was dismissed as a non-neutral source"
- Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree the tone of the sources is very negative. But from the sources that the article currently has, here are some key arguments for the pro-gun side that could be added (you don't need to include all of them):
- I'm seeing another significant issue as well, which is that the article seems to put the responsibility for the removal of mass shootings from the AR-15 article squarely on the shoulders of Niteshift36. Most of the sources say that a number of people removed this content, and don't even mention Niteshift36. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Template:Removed any mention of Niteshift.
A neutrality tag was added to the article yesterday, so we'll have to put this nomination on hold until the dispute is resolved. I'll be happy to finish reviewing at that time. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Someone has nominated the article for deletion, so until that resolves the article should continue to be on hold. Catrìona (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- For what it's worth the accusations made by The Verge, the source of most of the material included in the recently created wikipedia article, were poorly researched and basically took an otherwise unremarkable evolution of a few pages and turned it into a conspiracy. Rather than actually ask involved editors what they thought happened the Verge author jumped to conclusions. I posted this in reply to an editor around the time the articles were released.
- Template:Tq Springee (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Template:Ping Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps some of this material/Wikipedia editors' response could be included? I was able to locate your original post in various talk page archives, but I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to link if these are not indexed by Google and names should be redacted. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that I don't think WP:Firearms is a cabal; in fact, I haven't been involved in these discussions at all until I stumbled onto them and (probably too hastily) decided to create an article on the controversy. Catrìona (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Catrìona, thanks for the reply. Absent first hand context I can see why the articles make it look really bad. I wrote the above in response to others who took the contents of the articles at face value. For what it's worth, I hope that after reading it you can see why some of the "pro-gun" editors were frustrated by the articles and how something that from the trenches was nothing more than the typical push and pull of evolving articles was cited as a conspiracy while. Had this set of change occurred 6-12 months earlier I doubt we would be having this discussion now. Regardless, since the above is my OR we can't add it to an article even if we all agree it's 100% correct. It could be included in an internal to Wikipedia article but short of an external source picking up the discussion and reporting we wouldn't have a RS to cite. My read of RS is we can challenge the reliability of source articles based on our own research/arguments (and assuming consensus) but policy would prevent us from including such arguments in the Wiki-articles no matter how sound the OR. If nothing else, I'm glad we had a chance to discuss the topic. Springee (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)