Talk:O.F. Mossberg & Sons

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guns, gun manufacturer and Notable uses of guns dispute

@Springee: After I saw a gun used by attacker of terrorist attack in New Zealand 2019 AR-15 had a section that noted the use of the gun and the effect it had, I took the text and did the same type of edit to other weapons used in the attack Mossberg 930, Remington Model 870 as well as the company O.F. Mossberg & Sons. Yet you say use of the weapon in crime is not notable despite notable coverage. I would like to know why you reverted my properly sourced notable text trying to improve the article. If a fun manufacturers notable usage of gun cannot be written in the article then how is the article complete in it's coverage, isn't this a bias of ignorance towards it's products.Notbrev (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have asked for additional input at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings, I agree with Springee that it has WP:TOPIC problems. It doesn't add great value to know the exact make of guns used by Tarrant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the manufacturer has been directly blamed or implicated due to thr attack, this is a bit of coatracking and RGW laying blame in WPvoice at the manufacturer. --Masem (t) 15:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as particularly relevant or due for mention. If a Toyota Corolla were involved in a high-profile DUI crash, we might note the model of the car in an article about the incident, but we would not include a mention of it in the Toyota Corolla article. I don't see how this is different. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm:@Seraphimblade:@Masem: OK so I can only add the information if it is specifically identified as a leading cause of shooting like AR-15, I am assuming? But I can add it to users in Remington Model 870 under New Zealand terrorist description, because my sources are more direct and reliable than military usage for say the entry use in UK. Shouldn't users section like that be allowed for all gun articles?(not manufacturer) Notbrev (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While ultimately that should be discussed at Talk:Remington Model 870, not here, I would not see it to be appropriate to add it to the "Users" section there—that section is clearly for organizations which use it, not criminals who have. With the AR-15 article, I do see a mention there as due given the reputation of that particular gun as having developed a reputation as frequently featuring in mass shootings. I do not believe the Remington Model 870 has any such similar reputation, nor that sources would discuss it generally in that way as they do with the AR-15 type rifles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy IRL but I agree with what the others have said. This is something that comes up often in firearms (and other) articles and relates to what I've called reciprocity of weight. If thing A is mentioned in an article about event/thing B, should the article about A mention B? At some extreme probably not. For example a visit by President Obama might be a big deal in an article about East North Middle School. However, that visit likely is not a important in the Obama BLP. In this case, the use of firearms was important in the scope of the crime, that one was a shotgun might be important. That is was a specific model of common shotgun isn't. As such we may mention the use of the shotgun and since it's common identifying information, the brand and model (ie, Mossberg Model XXX vs "pump action shotgun"). However, that doesn't mean that articles about the shotgun are likely to mention the crime. If they don't then an article about the specific model shouldn't either. By extension an article about the mfg certainly shouldn't. However, if the use in a crime resulted in a lawsuit that ultimately impacted the company (ie wasn't dismissed or ruled in favor of the company) then it becomes significant in context of the company and should be mentioned. As for the AR-15 articles, we need to distinguish between the generic AR-15 article and the Colt branded firearm AR-15. As a generic style of rifle the AR-15 has been the subject of a number of news articles about it's use in crimes and the related morality/legality aspects. As such it is appropriate to discuss crimes in that aggregated context. Springee (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your argument on the lawsuit part was important. Though I hope stuff like Remington Model NNN gun use by law enforcement removed the user section since it by the same standard is likely not notable.(I won't be editing since I am clearly not in the majority) Notbrev (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]