Talk:AR-15–style rifle: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 617:

:::: The Atlantic, the New York Times, and other major media outlets are obviously RSs on mass shootings. Please stop spreading mis-information and referring to policies that do not exist.

:::: Now, to try to move forward. Above you suggested removing some material. What material specifically do you propose we remove? <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 13:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

:::::No, it doesn't. You are simply wrong on this point. It doesn't contradict policy because policy says weight is based on coverage by reliable sources AND the reliability of a source is based on context. So all you need to do is go find sources that say something different AND are authoritative enough to make the claims in question. We don't use lay reporter opinions as reliable on matters such as medical issues or physics or engineering. The same applies here. If you want to propose adding something to the effect of "Media sources have argued these weapons are picked for X but experts Y and Z say this..." that is one thing. You can not use non-expert sources to support an opinion that would require an expert. It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim otherwise. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

:There has been no valid reason presented to remove, alter, or balance content with the claim that journalist are experts and able to make a analysis of criminal intentions. Are we really debating this?

:This is simply a attempt to remove content WW dislikes as stated above. The Blair and Hazon content in the article speaks to the weapon of choice claim. How is something used to balance content, then needs further content to balance it? That's nonsense. Its funny how he never mention Blair as if to dismiss his added weight. He has repeatedly said incorrectly there analysis in the article states the weapon is not lethal. When in fact all they contend in the article is perceived lethality, neither seen as overly lethal or lacking lethality for there weapon selection.