Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 9

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Felsic2 in topic Where should criminal use information be included?
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 13

Source discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago48 comments6 people in discussion

This is a central discussion about sources used on this project's articles. Relevant policies and guidelines are:

Disagreements about outcomes should be taken to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.

Template

Site name/site url

  • Home page & About us
  • Use on Wikipedia
  • Previous discussions
  • Special notes
Discussion:
Outcome:

Common outcomes

  • Unreliable SPS
  • Reliable SPS because:
    • Field of expertise
    • Note: Even SPSes permitted because the writer is an expert on the topic are still not allowed for info about BLPs.
  • Looks like an SPS but isn't because:
  • Generally unreliable SPS but certain pages are reliable for listed reasons
  • Dubious source, use only with attribution

Modern Firearms world.guns.ru

Discussion

Archived discussion [2]

Outcome
  • Reliable SPS because: Maxim Popenker, the author and webmaster, has written books issued by reputable publishers on these topics:
    • machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles, combat pistols, WWII guns

Gunblast.com

Discussion:

Archived discussion [4]

Outcome:

Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the main author Jeff Quinn.

HKPRO/ hkpro.com

Discussion:

Archive discussion [6]

Outcome:

Unreliable because it is an anonymous website with no claims of expertise and no editorial review.

Status

I removed all citations to this source. For articles about H&K firearms, or wherever it seemed likely that editors might want to use this website as a source again, I posted a notice pointing back to this section on the talk page. For example: [7]. One cite was restored, so I tagged it as SPS and left a note on the talk page. [8] I left the links when they were "External links". In one case I deleted material describing a test conducted by someone at the website, since there can't be any other sources for it.[9] Rezin (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Military Guns & Ammunition quarryhs.co.uk

Discussion:

This should be an easy one. This is clearly a self-published website, but the author, Anthony G. Williams, is clearly a widely recognized expert. Rezin (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Outcome

Reliable SPS because the author is a published expert.

Remtek remtek.com

Discussion:

This appears to be a self-published source. There's no description of the webmaster's credentials, and the rest of the website make it look like he's primarily a computer geek. Much of the content appears to be reprints from firearms magazine, or material copied from manufacturers. The reprints are presumably reliable, though the copyright issue may be a bit murky. The citations should reference the original source and the Remtek site, unless someone can find the originals. Anything which doesn't have an original source from a reliable publication is probably unreliable. Rezin (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Working through the citations, I see at least one, Machine pistol, to an article by Walt Rauch.[12] While he has self-published a book, he's also written for several gun magazines[13][14] and so would qualify for the SPS exemption. Rezin (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Reprints of published articles are presumably reliable. Self-published articles with no provenance are probably not reliable.

Status

Most of the citations were to reprints, which I filled in with better citations. A few were unsigned pieces which I marked with SPS tags. I left the external links in place, except where they duplicated links to citations.Rezin (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reload Bench reloadbench.com

Discussion:

This is a little tricky- the website has been offline for over a year. The only comment I can find on it is from an editor who made a page about firearms sources (I guess he was working on the same effort I am) who said the data was user-supplied or derived from COTW. In any case, it's clearly a self-published source. The author/owner makes no claim to expertise and my best efforts to find his name and see if he's published anything haven't turned up any other writings. So I'd assume that it would not count as a reliable source. Rezin (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! Might as well use COTW.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Status

I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Box 'O Truth theboxotruth.com

Discussion:

I like this site: the author does straigthforward and informative tests, shows his setup, and does it all with a cheerful tone. I'm surprised by how little it's used. Unfortunately, he does not make any claims of expertise. His bio in "About Us" does not list any previous publications. The only previous discussion on WP was during a an assessment review for a MilHistory A-level, in which the use of this source was a significant sticking point. I regret to say that this site probably has to be designated an unreliable SPS. Rezin (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome:

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Status

I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Gun Zone gunzone.com

Discussion:

The main author and webmaster, Dean Speir, lists extensive credentials on an outside website: [19]. He has been called an 'expert' by other reputable authors. OTOH, one WP editor has repeatedly challenged its reliability. That editor has said the site "uses sensational wording" and the site "is filled full of inaccurate language". Another editor said it "needs to be looked at - claims to be reliable but doesn't seem to meet WP:RS". Neither of those give policy based reasons to discount its reliability. The site does host writings by other authors, such as Daniel (DE) Watters, who may not have the same level of expertise as Speir, so caution is still required. The site does not seem to have the level of editorial oversight required to allow non-experts to be considered reliable. My assessment is that Speir is a recognized and published expert, but that other material needs to be evaluated individually. Rezin (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a glorified blog, unreliable. We can do better than this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Speir's credentials are similar to Quinn's, if not better. Both sites are blogs. What difference do you see? Rezin (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Any other input? Otherwise I'd conclude this is "Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the main author". Rezin (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there's a reason why no reputable journal has hired him over the past 2 decades.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. Is there a substantive reason to question Speir's expertise? Rezin (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
My bias may be personal, I'll keep out of this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster Dean Speir, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.

Guns and Shooting Online chuckhawks.com

Discussion:

Another tricky one. The site has a masthead-type staff, but the owner/webmaster/editor-in-chief/main contributor is a single person. For those reasons, I'd categorize it as a self-published source except when publishing someone besides Chuck Hawks. There seem to be quite a few discussions of his site in webforums, but those have no bearing on our decision here. On WP, There's been an unusual amount of discussion. There was a complaint about a link to a password protected page - apparently some of the content is for website members only. However such sources are allowed, per WP:V, although the large number of password-protected links makes verifying material more difficult.. An anonymous editor calls him "a well respected and widely published firearms and reloading expert." Two different editors question the accuracy of certain facts from the site. An editor finds an incorrect fact from an article by a 3rrd party on the site that was subsequently corrected. One editor said that he is not a reliable source for military firearms. And another editor finds a Hawks' article to be superior to a Wikipedia article on the same topic. (Faint praise!) An editor of a naval article said that the source looks self-published and therefore not to be relied upon. However the bottom line is that I can't find any evidence that Hawks has been published outside of his own website. If so, his self-published articles would not qualify as reliable for Wikipedia purposes. The big question is whether the site should be categorized as self-published or not. Rezin (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If no one here has an opinion I might post at the relable sources noticeboard to get more input. This source is used a lot so it's important to make an accurate determination. Rezin (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"Guns And Shooting Online" chuckhawks.com Rezin (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion has now been archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182#"Guns And Shooting Online" chuckhawks.com. It received two replies from a regular editor and one reply from an IP editor whose opinions I don't trust. The regular editor seemed to indicate that the site is borderline allowable for both Hawks' own writing and for those of other contributors. The discussion is partly dependent on WP:WORKINPROGRESS, which is perhaps a subsidiary of WP:IAR. It derives evidence that the site is cited in published books, which implies it has a reputation for reliability, even thought from what I can tell discussion on policy talk pages have rejected previous citations as proof of reliability. Perhaps the best conclusion at this time may be to say that the site is marginally reliable, should be replaced where possible, and should not be used for contentious claims. That would allow us to keep all the existing citations unless they're challenged, and spare a lot of effort and disruption. Rezin (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Appears to meet some standards of reliability. Editors should be cautious about using it for contentious claims. Rezin (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sniper Central snipercentral.com

While it's hard to pin down, it appears that this is a self-published source. There's a page describing its origin which almost exclusively uses the singular pronoun.[22] Later entries often use plural pronouns, but never identify who the other people are. The "About Us" page just lists a mailing address, but it's clear that it's Mel Ewing's site.[23][24] He indicates he's a veteran, but doesn't list any previous publications. The site puts out a newsletter, but I can't find any masthead to indicate other people have editorial oversight. The site sells goods and services, which appears to be its primary purpose. The WHOIS and FFL listings are to a private residence.[25] The reviews, etc, seem to be written mostly, or perhaps exclusively, by Ewing.[26][27] The previous commentary on WP has been very negative: "it isn't reliable, is is SPS, unedited, and no sign of expertise"; "a very poor source of information on historical persons, since it's been caught editing in its own members names as "famous historical snipers!" before, inflating kill numbers, and similar indiscretions"; "notoriously vandalised/suspect/incorrect"; "isn't a real ref and wouldn't stand up to WP:RS"; "bullshit from some SniperCentral site"; "questionable link". So, altogether, it appears to be a self-published source written by someone who has never been published previously. Rezin (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Cruffler cruffler.com

This is an acknowledged self-published website, put out by Adam Firestone (not the winemaker). He apparently writes articles, sells curios and relics, etc. The articles there appear well written and cite sources. It was active from 1999 to 2001, and apparently hasn't been updated in over a decade. His outside credentials are significant, but maybe not relevant as they seem to be mostly connected with cybersecurity: [29][30][31] He says he wrote a book a government pistol contracts, but I can't find it. Maybe self-published? One of his gigs is as a technical weapons consultant to fiction writers. In addition to a blog, http://adamfirestoneconsultant.blogspot.com/, he also writes a regular column for (I kid you not) 'Romance University',[32]. Several of his articles for that 'university' include clear plagiarism of material from Wikipedia, etc.

Given the venue, it's hard to blame him for that. The only thing close to a discussion on WP is an editor expressing disbelief at an assertion from the site. I'd conclude that the website is self-published and that the author does not exactly meet WP standards for a published expert. Rezin (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely SPS--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Internet Movie Firearms Database imfdb.org

Discussion
  • WP:USERGENERATED applies in this case. The IMFDB appears to be an open wiki, one which relies mostly on visual identification rather than printed sources. One editor on WP described it as reliable, but they were speaking generally and not in reference to site policies. More editors have described it as unreliable. It's questionable whether it is allowable in external links, per WP:EL, but that's another matter. In conclusion, the source does not appear to meet WP's reliability standards. Rezin (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As one of the managers of IMFDB, if I may toss in my two cents. Rezin is correct for 95% of the content on IMFDB. It is an open source wiki and anyone can edit it. We do strive to be as correct as possible of course. I am not well enough versed in Wikipedia's policies to know whether it is to be considered a reliable source. But let me add this. At least a dozen of the main contributors to the site are movie armorers, and are the individuals who actually provided the weapons for the movie. For example, if one were to look at the page for Die Hard... On the site we have an image of the actual gun that was held by Bruce WIllis in the film. Not a similar version but the exact one he handled. This is because the person who contributed that image and most of the content on that page, was the armorer for the movie. Just food for thought. As I am obviosuly biased I am going to abstain for advocating one way or the other, but I hope that I can help shed some light on the site and answer any questions. If anyone does has more questions about IMFDB and how it works, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. I would love to contribute whatever I can to a constructive conversation, whatever the end outcome. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that input. FWIW, the prohibition on open wikis at WP:USERGENERATED includes this clause: "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." If the material is labeled correctly and the member's credentials are linked to it, then that material should be acceptable. I don't think the distinction between editorial staff and users in that guideline is of practical use - WP, for instance, doesn't have an "editorial staff". Rezin (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zackmann08: By any chance, is there a list of "credentialed" editors at IMFDB? Part of the reason for this review is to make it easier for editors to know which sources can be relied upon, so a 'cheat sheet' of experts on that site would help. If not, don't worry- the fall back position would be for those who want to use a reference to establish its reliability on a case-by-case basis. Rezin (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Generally unreliable because it's an open wiki, however contributions by credentialed experts are probably reliable when they are working within their fields of expertise.

Six Guns sixguns.com

Discussion

This is almost a pro forma entry: John Taffin is a well-known and well-respected writer. I don't think there's any question that he's a recognized expert. However, it does need to be pointed out that sixguns.com is a self-published website, and as such may not be used in reference to living people. Also it includes "guest writers", none of whom have the same reputation as Taffin. The presumed outcome here would be that the entries by Taffin are reliable but other entries need to be evaluated individually. Rezin (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

none of whom have the same reputation as Taffin...I take offense to that! Just kidding, my sole contribution on there was not a very technical piece, nor was it meant to be, that's the nature of many of his "guests" I suppose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No offense intended - I hadn't even noticed your name. It's just that very few writers have a reputation as high as Taffin's. Yet. ;) Rezin (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster John Taffin, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.

Forgotten weapons forgottenweapons.com

Discussion

The only previous discussion on WP is one I started last week. The website is apparently some kind of group blog. Its "About" page does not list any editors or contributors. Most articles are unsigned. Some are signed,[36] but they don't link to biographies listing credentials. I'd conclude that this site does not meet WP standards for a reliable source. Since it's mostly anonymous, it can't qualify for the expert exemption to SPS. Rezin (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of that website is to focus on obscure firearms. They may be the only immediately accessible source for certain vial statistics such as dimensions. Is it better to use a self published source or to copy from it and not cite anything? (Not a rhetorical question.) Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree this is an important question. We brushed the topic in the Sources discussion at the top of this page, but it might be a good idea to discuss it again since Rezin has given us a good list of examples to assess the impact of answer. Thewellman (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Since these points go beyond this one website, let's discuss them in a separate thread. I'll start one below. Rezin (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this website, I did some more digging and found that the webmaster and principal author is Ian McCollum. Checking Google Books and Amazon, I can't find any books. Checking regular Google, I can't find any other publications for which he's written. He does appear on many podcasts, but that's not a factor. The most official (though probably still self-provided) biography is on this page: [37]. Here's a more casual one: [38]. But the 'expert exemption' from the prohibition on self-published sources requires that the author have been previously published in a reliable 3rd-party source, and I don't see that in this case.
If there are specific facts that are so important they're worth doing some extra work, I'd suggest contacting the webmaster/author and asking him for the original source of his information. It's quite possible that it comes from a published source - he lists some in a bibliography.[39] Once you've obtained that source, you can cite it directly. Rezin (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The more I looked into this the more I've grown to like McCollum. The webmaster/author brings a wonderful enthusiasm to his efforts. I expect that one of these days he'll get published in a reliable source and then his credentials will be established. But until then he unfortunately does not seem to qualify as an expert for WP purposes, and so his self-published website does not qualify as reliable. Rezin (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert. May change if the author becomes a published expert.

Carbines For Collectors carbinesforcollectors.com

Discussion

Another self-published website. The bottom of the page says the copyright holders (and presumably the main contributors) are "RK Smith~Dan Reynolds~Cliff Carlisle ". RK Smith is probably Reine Smith. None of those contributors appear to have ever been published before. The home page has a weird conspiracy theory about the Rothschilds. All in all, this doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Rezin (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by non-experts.

6mmBR.com/AccurateShooter.com

Discussion

These two websites are twins as far as I can tell - run by the same people with lots of intermixed links. In addition to original pieces they host copies of previously published articles. The "About us" page lists an "editor in chief" and a set of regular contributors. At least one. Kelly Bachand, is notable in his own right. However most articles I looked at are unsigned. The discussion on Wikipedia is sparse: one IP says it looks reliable. AliveFreeHappy says "Neat articles, but not sure about cartridge dimensions." Does anyone else know more? If not, my assessment is that this has sufficient editorial oversight to avoid being a self-published source. That would only apply to articles, of course, and not their forums. Rezin (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Reliable source due to the appearance of strong editorial oversight.

Terminal Ballistics Research ballisticstudies.com

Discussion

This is, according to its home page, "a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing." I wish we could call it reliable, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria. The main webmaster/author is Nathan Foster. He has written a book, The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Rifles, but it's clearly self-published.[44] I can't find any sign that he's been published by reliable 3rd parties. So this seems to be another less-than-reliable SPS. Rezin (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Bangladesh Military Forces bdmilitary.com

There has been some discussion of the reliability of this source, much of it involving two editors. (Both of them are still active in case anyone thinks pinging them would be helpful.) One editor has said " at best only marginally reliable", includes "seemingly incorrect, or at least very inflated" claims. Another editor agrees about the "lack of authenticity" and complains elsewhere about their "vandalism". A third calls it "unreliable". OTOH, one editor says "I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect." The bottom of the bdmilitary page says it is part of the Defensechat Network at www.defensechat.com. That link goes to an empty wordpress blog. An editor here says the owner is Ashiqur Rahman of Sydney, Australia. An IP editor from Australia was accused of spamming links to it. There is a Facebook page.[46] It says the site's mission is to "Inform the world about the strategic importance of Bangladesh and create a positive image of the Bangladesh armed forces." An editor reports that it has or used to have the motto, "In Allah we trust & all others we dominate". The "About" page says its founder and staff are all former members of the Bangladesh military, but doesn't give any of their names. Because of its size and complexity, it's doubtful that this is a self-published source. OTOH, it does not seem to have editorial rigor. Based on looking at it and the WP:RSN thread, my assessment is that this would qualify as a questionable source. Rezin (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Questionable source of marginal reliability. References should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and editors should be cautious about using it for contentious claims.

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News ammoland.com

Discussion

An editor has called it a "barely" reliable "blog" with "an obscure publication process and doesn't meet this reliability standard." In discussion of a UK-oriented article an editor called it "a highly pro-gun website with an US domestic agenda" that's inappropriate for a UK article. The draft article about it calls it a "news aggregator" and mentions several controversies. Another editors said its material needs to be looked at with a "critical eye". The list of contributors includes many notable gun rights advocates and other conservative commentators. Their contribution are probably akin to opinion pieces rather than editorially reviewed reporting. The issue of strong advocacy is largely outside the rules pertaining reliable sources and is addressed by proper use per WP:NPOV. This site does feature a full editorial staff and an explicit editorial process. For those reasons it does not appear to be an SPS. However a lot of what they carry are press releases, which are still self-published sources despite being reprinted on their site. Press releases are a special kind of SPS but follow the same basic rule: they can only be used as a source about the issuer. They may not be used for unrelated facts and especially not for unrelated living people. Unfortunately AmmoLand doesn't tag the press releases as such. One typical convention for press releases is that the last paragraph is "about" the issuing organization, and on this site they are posted without a byline. WP editors need to cite the site with care and indicate whether they're referencing a press release or original editorial content. I'd boil this down to "Reliable for original content, while the use of reprinted press releases and opinion pieces must follow applicable WP rules." Rezin (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Reliable for original content, while the use of reprinted press releases and opinion pieces must follow applicable WP rules. Care is needed to distinguish the type and authorship of their articles.

Security Arms securityarms.com

  • Note: this is a favorite site of Jetway/Ctway/Ose\fio, who has repeatedly copied text from it into WP, and who may have been active on its forum.
Discussion

An editor questions its editorial oversight. Another calls it a "gun-fan" site. Another calls it an "unreliable source" and another says he doesn't believe it is a reliable source. Other comments include: "inaccurate ", "not a reliable source", has "quite a bit of incorrect information". However an IP user calls their forum "an excellent [49] source for new articles and pictures alike". It mostly seems to be a collection of user-submitted photos. There's no "about" page, no claim that the webmaster has any special experience, no editorial review process to ensure accuracy. A little digging shows that the webmaster is probably the guy featured in this article, [50], a USAF veteran, inventor, and survival expert. I can't find any mention of writing credentials though. Based on previous discussions, the lack of relevant webmaster/owner credentials, and the lack of editorial oversight, this does not seem to be a reliable source. Rezin (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert and/or it contains user-submitted material without sufficient editorial review.

Fr. Frog frfrogspad.com

Discussion

The only prior comment is from an editor who said it is "far from being a reliable source". It is obviously a self-published source by a nominally anonymous author/webmaster who makes no claim to having been published before. His name isn't hard to find, but I still can't find any sign that he's considered a published expert. Therefore this site would not meet the standards for reliability. Rezin (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Soldier Systems soldiersystems.net

Discussion

This is difficult to evaluate. It gives the appearance of a big website with editorial supervision. But it's almost entirely anonymous. The "About us" page is very short on specifics. It uses the plural pronoun "we", but in such a way that it seems to be written by and about one person. For example, "...we run SSD on Zulu time zone (GMT) since we travel so much. It helps us synch up our content no matter where we are" or "If you have an Xbox Live account, you can friend request “Tactical Fanboy”." Much of the content looks like rehashed press releases and positive reviews of the sponsors' products. None of those factors make this look like a reliable source. Does anyone else know more about the website? Rezin (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Soldier Systems is an industry daily which is published online. Its traffic stats can be found here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Not enough information to determine reliability.

Military Today military-today.com

One editor says it "is not always the best source to reference as in debates above, it tends to be out of date". Another editor says the site is right about a certain fact. Another editor says it is "a user contributed website" and therefore not reliable, and elsewhere that it's a personal website. Another editor describes it as "anonymous" and says it does not qualify as a verifiable source. Looking at the "personal appeal" page, it's clear that this is a one-man website. The owner/author, Andrius Genys, makes no claim to expertise. He appears to have self-published a variety of weaponry-related books available on Amazon and Lulu.[55](lulu.com/shop/search.ep?contributorId=1274887) In summary, this source appears to be an SPS published by a non-expert which would not qualify as a reliable source. Rezin (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Semi-automatic firearms articles quality and importance

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed the class and importance of these articles today: Semi-automatic firearm[56] Semi-automatic pistol[57] Semi-automatic rifle[58] Semi-automatic shotgun[59]

... based on this project's Quality and Importance scales. Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I recently had to pull most of the material in the Gun law in the United States for WP:COPYVIO. Working today on the "Semi-automatic..." articles, I am beginning to wonder if that is a problem here, too. Semi-automatic firearm has had a "refimprove" tag on it since 2009. Semi-automatic pistol has been tagged since 2010. Semi-automatic rifle (tagged since 2011) and Semi-automatic shotgun (tagged today), are less problematic because they're much smaller than the SAF and SAP articles. Opinions, anyone? Lightbreather (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted material in articles is a problem everywhere. There's been a sockpuppet army copying material into firearms articles from other websites for years. I looked up that one and see that the material was added to a different article way back in 2006[60], then moved to the gun law article when it was created. The editors don't look like sockpuppets, so this probably isn't part of that problem. But we always have to be on the watch for copied material. Rezin (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems with History of the firearm and Firearm#History

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

My WP work recently has me moving about quite a bit, and this came to my attention today: the overlap and discrepancies between Firearm#History and History of the firearm. For instance, the former article mentions greek fire, but the latter does not. The former also says that "History of the firearm" is the main article (for firearm history), but then goes on with many subsections of material that may or may not be in the other article. "Firearm" was created in September 2001, and "History of the firearm" was created in April 2007. "Firearm" is rated Top-importance to this project, but "History of the firearm" is unrated. Both have large blocks of text that lack inline citations. The whole scope is outside my general knowledge and interest. I don't want to touch them, but maybe one or more members of the project would be interested and better qualified than I? Or maybe the military history or technology projects? Lightbreather (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. The project importance ratings aren't of much importance. Regardless of that, both articles are important. In a perfect Wikipedia world, the history material in the "Firearms" article would simply be a summary of the "History" article. But as you've discovered, things are more complicated. One strategy would be to fold anything that not already there into the "History" article, make other improvements to that article (including citing where appropriate), and then create a fresh summary for the "Firearms" article. I can do part of that work. Rezin (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be great. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: "Gun Politics Task Force"

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

This scope of this project now includes "political" topics such as organizations and legislation related to firearms. Many of the issues with those topics are distinct from those concerning the firearms themselves. Per discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Source discussion 2 and User talk:Rezin#Gun politics discussion from Mike's page, some editors think it would be beneficial to split out the political topics into a task force, which would function as a sub-project. The effect would be to remove those articles from the watchlist, etc, of the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms and allow interested editors to more easily focus on them. The hope is that this would spark new interest in improving politically related firearms articles, and lower the level of controversy on the remaining articles. One option is to make it a joint task force with Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, should those projects be interested. This proposal does not require any special approval from the overall WP community, but it should have a consensus of users at this project. Please give your views here. Rezin (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I support the concept of separating the regulatory aspects of firearms use from the technical aspects of firearms construction and operation. Perhaps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force might serve as a model for a separate subgrouping. Thewellman (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thewellman, that's a great suggestion. I too support this effort. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support here. While an understanding of firearms technology is vital to understanding firearms law and politics, it's also important to know law and politics in general. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rezin: So it looks like we have a consensus...how do we move forward? Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks to everyone who participated. @Scalhotrod: has put some effort into thinking about how to create this task force, so it'd be best for him to take the lead. I'll start a fresh thread below for discussion about how to proceed now that we've agreed on its creation. Rezin (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As one of the founders of [61] GSL, I can see how this could be beneficial in a number of ways. I'm no expert on the technical side of firearms, but I do have some experience and knowledge within the realm of what could be considered "gun politics". The main issue in most of these types of articles seems polemic in nature, and being able to find and acheive a WP:Balance within these articles. Often, diffusing differences of opinion between the two sides can be quite daunting and takes time and trust between editors. I've had the privilege of getting to know and work with some of the folks on both side of the aisle on WP and feel I could be of some use in these matters. Darknipples (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cautious support. Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

MP 40 and referencing Military Factory website

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please visit the discussion here. The article has been nominated for GA-review, spawning a discussion whether the Military Factory website is a WP:RS. Opinions are welcome. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've posted a review of the source there. Rezin (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The article just underwent a massive overhaul. Any editors familiar with or interested in WWII weapons may want to check it for completeness and accuracy. Rezin (talk)
Thanks for your help on this MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for "Threaded barrel" article or update

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The technical stuff is not my forte. Could someone either A) create a Threaded barrel article, or B) add the information to Gun barrel? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, I have proposed merging Muzzle (firearms) into Gun barrel. Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Threaded barrel may be an ambiguous term, since many barrels are threaded at the chamber end for attachment to the receiver. Perhaps threaded muzzle would be a more appropriate term, or we might want to keep the muzzle (firearms) article separate to include description of attachment mechanisms for such items as a front sight, sling, bipod, bayonet, flash suppressor, or silencer. Thewellman (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun Politics Task Force: creation process

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a consensus among active editors to create a "Gun Politics Task Force" as a sub-project of WikiProject Firearms. See Proposal: "Gun Politics Task Force". @Scalhotrod: has reserved the page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Gun Politics Task Force. He has also researched other task forces which we can use as a template. The most important issue to consider is the scope of the task force, and hence which articles it will include. That scope won't be fixed forever: we just need a working definition to get started. To get the ball rolling, I'd propose we might say something like, "Topics encompassing organizations, legislation, regulations, political issues, and societal effects associated with firearms." How can we improve on that? Rezin (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rezin: sounds good. It can be changed later if we need to. I'd suggest adding people too - e.g. Carolyn McCarthy, Wayne LaPierre, and Big Tim Sullivan. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This okay?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[62] I was WP:BOLD and moved Lee–Enfield from a hyphen to an ndash. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Grubb reflector sight on an unidentified rifle

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Speaking of Enfields: can somebody indentify the rifle in these pictures so they don’t have to stay in the unidentified firearms category? Thanks in advance ✦ hugarheimur 02:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Torana: looks like a Lee-Metford to me. Note the volley sight thingymawhatsit on the side. And the unprotected front sight. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I’ve put them in the Lee-Metford category. Thanks, Faceless Enemy. Rgds ✦ hugarheimur 15:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

10mm versus 10 mm?

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

All of the cartridge pages out there (e.g. 5.56×45mm NATO, 9×19mm Parabellum, and 7.62×39mm) have the "mm" next to the last digit of the cartridge name. However, 40 mm grenade, 10 mm caliber, and 125 mm smoothbore ammunition all have a space. I may have to self-revert a bunch of stuff because I've been operating under the assumption that "40 mm" means "40 millimeters" (as in "the ant walked 40 mm") whereas "40mm" means "40mm caliber" (as in "40mm grenade"). What's the dividing line here? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The caliber is indeed expressed as a measurement in millimetres. The abbreviation "mm" is the unit, not part of the number, and therefore should be separated by a non-breaking space, per WP:UNIT (40 mm, not 40mm). Similarly, the multiplication sign should be separated by non-breaking spaces (5.56 × 45 mm, not 5.56×45 mm). Technically, the unit "mm" should be repeated after both measurements (5.56 mm × 45 mm) but there may be good reason to ignore that in this special case if it is never referred to as such. —sroc 💬 16:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That is a bizarre, WP-only (AFAIK) convention. Every magazine article I've ever seen, every metric caliber reference, has been 10mm or 5.56x45mm or 75mm with no space. I see no reason to invent a new convention. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ammo seems to be a weird exception - try searching images for "9mm Luger box" or "5.56 box" or something. The "mm" is usually shoved right up next to the last letter. (see [63][64][65]), but there is some inconsistency ([66]). And I believe Trekphiler is correct; convention in gun writing seems to be "9mm" not "9 mm". Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There could be some U.S. writers' oddities at play, here, since most of the refs I've seen have been U.S. sources (mainly the gun mags). IDK if Europeans generally ad a space in ammo, let alone elsewhere; for myself, I've always left out the space in all cases. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: It's not "bizarre", it's logical. You say "9 millimetre", not "9millimetre"; the same applies when you replace "millimetre" with "mm". This is specified in the International System of Units which defines SI units such as millimetres. There may be a special exception for calibres, though. —sroc 💬 02:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's bizarre if WP is the only place it happens, which appears to be the case. Neither is what's written a dead-accurate representation of what's spoken, or it would invariably be "nine millimeter" & never "9mm" (or anything like it). I presume you're not advocating that. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
10mm or 9mm or 5.56x45mm are the correct cartridge names according to SAAMI, just like Trekphiler says. This is why you see them spelled that way in reloading manuals, articles in trade magazines, and catalogs from ammunition manufacturers. Technically all of the non metric calibers on Wiki (45 ACP, 32 ACP, etc) are incorrect as the decimal is never added to precede the first digit according to SAAMI, either. Now in the original statement, with regard to 10 mm caliber, that is correct because it is not an article about the 10mm cartridge, but rather cartridges that use a bullet that measures 10 millimeters in diameter.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Mike Searson, so is it a "40mm grenade" or a "40 mm grenade"? Ditto to "100 mm gun" versus "100mm gun". Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it both ways, but more often with a space. For cartridges over 50BMG I would defer to the Military Project, For WP:Guns we are more concerned with small arms.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Schwarzlose M07/12 listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Schwarzlose M07/12 to be moved to Schwarzlose M.7. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style addition - specify caliber?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can we add something in the project guidelines about making sure that the caliber is generally fully designated (e.g. "9×19mm" or "9mm Luger" rather than just "9mm")? There are lots of articles with the caliber designated as something like "7.62 mm". We shouldn't make it incumbent upon the reader to follow a series of links to understand that an AKM, FAL, PPSh-41, and Dragunov all take different 7.62 mm ammunition. Likewise, mixing metric and imperial units gets ugly (e.g. "The armed forces of X use calibers 9×19mm, 5.56×45mm, 7.62×51mm, and .50 BMG"). IMO it's easier for the reader to understand if we keep things consistently metric or imperial when in a table. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, spell them out and be consistent; if you want to take the lead on drafting something up, you have my support. The second part I do not agree with and hate when people use "11.whatever" when describing 45 ACP and IIRC, 50 BMG and 45 ACP are the only non-metric cartridges used by any military (unless there are still zoomies packing 38s). John Moses Browning cries in heaven every time someone types that, but every time I shoot 10mm on the same day as 41 Magnum, a kitten gets happy.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What about "12.7×99mm (.50 BMG)"? ".50 BMG" doesn't mean anything to non-Americans or newbies, and "12.7×99mm" doesn't mean anything to me. The nice thing about the metric designations is that you get an overall feel for the cartridge sizes relatively quickly. Can we get something that works for new/European readers without ditching experienced American readers? I'm especially talking about lists of military equipment, where 90% of the rest of the list will be in metric terms...which I guess falls under Wikiproject Military History just as much as it falls under this project. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the time the average reader just needs to know at first instance the weapon bore in a measurement - they are comfortable with. Eg in WPMILHIST articles if I see ".50 cal" I generally add a "(12.7 mm)" after it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral eyes needed at Bushmaster M17S

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is some edit dispute going on at Bushmaster M17S, so it would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved party could swing by to help resolve the discord, and/or help to bring the article up to snuff. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Your edits are, of course, correct. I suspect he's going to be a handful for a little while. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent work by both of you. Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you take a look at Draft:Gas-Checks in British RML Heavy Guns? Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Deferred-Class Firearms articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone in the Firearms project review the 156 entries in the Category:Deferred-Class Firearms articles and see which ones are really deferred and which ones belong in other classes?--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Cap gun

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've just noticed this at .22 Long Rifle & .22 Extra Long: somebody's systematically deleting all the capitals in caliber names, including .38 Special & .357 Magnum. Plus, somebody moved .22 Extra Long to .22 extra long... (I've moved it back...) I've never seen this in the sources; they all use caps. The rationale given is WP:MOSCAPS, which, I suggest, is contrary to what the sources all say in these cases. IMO, attention to this is needed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Just had to do the same for .22 Short (which I missed before...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Firearms by caliber subcategory for bore

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for additional input (or consensus) on a discussion for creating a subcategory in Category:Firearms by caliber which would be for the articles 2 bore, 4 bore, 6 bore, 8 bore and Six bore, which I started because the cat was tagged at some point as a container cat (subcats only), apparently to subcategorize by caliber. Slivicon (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Grain"

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The usage of Grain is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Status of ITAR changes

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In June the United States government published this: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf proposed change to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR were originally intended to control international distribution of military hardware. The proposed regulatory change may be intended to control distribution of information about improvised firearms. Crude firearms have long been assembled from parts not meeting US legal definitions of firearms. Materials science advances and expanded tool availability has improved opportunities for low-cost manufacturing techniques to construct more sophisticated firearms similar to those suitable for military use, and for which civilian manufacture, transfer, possession, and/or use may be legally restricted. Although the proposed regulations may have been intended to expand ITAR's regulatory reach to restrict distribution of instructions on how to manufacture improvised military firearms from materials not subject to weapons transfer limitations under previous regulatory definitions, concern has been expressed that the proposed expanded regulatory reach might be interpreted to apply to internet publication of information about a wider variety of subject matter related to other weaponry.

The comment period for the proposed regulatory change expired on 3 August 2015; and corresponding regulatory changes may now be implemented. Can someone recommend reliable sources for information about the ultimate fate of these proposed regulations? Thewellman (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Low caliber?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I encountered this at Mauser MG 213: a metric case designation. I expect it's commonplace, so I wondered: is there a way to use the convert template to produce a metric designation without the "extra" unit? That is, not this: 9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears it's more complicated than I thought.... So, will editors weigh in here? Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It is far more complicated than you think, and a formulaic Metric <-> Imperial conversion will almost never yield a "correct" result that would mean anything to anyone looking for firearms information. For example, the 9mmx25 is simply never referred to in Imperial units, only Metric. And which "9mmx25"? The 9mmx25 Super Auto G? 9mmx25 Dillon? 9mmx25 Mauser? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.84 (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Wacky complexity. Bullets of .38 special and .357 magnum cartridges have the same diameter—What a country! Of course, in America, you choose bullet, but in Soviet Russia, bullet chooses you! — ¾-10 01:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Criminal Use Images

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the discussion at Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Memorial plaque concerning whether or not to include an image of a memorial plaque for victims of criminal use in a firearm article. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger notice

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In October 2011, it was suggested that "List of service rifles of national armies" be merged into "Service rifle". Members of this WikiProject are hence requested to follow up the merger proposal and conclude. This is long-pending. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

template:Gundisp

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{Gundisp}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Expanding classes

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just an FYI but currently Template:WikiProject Firearms doesn't allow for draft, redirect, template or other classes so pages like Draft talk:Smith & Wesson Model 3913LS are currently hidden within the 950 or so pages at Category:NA-Class Firearms articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea -- DRAFT/BOOK/PORTAL/FILE/REDIRECT/DAB-- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 Colorado Springs shooting listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 Colorado Springs shooting to be moved to 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2015 San Bernardino shooting listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 San Bernardino shooting to be moved to San Bernardino shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting to be moved to 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2015 San Bernardino shooting listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 San Bernardino shooting to be moved to 2015 San Bernardino attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Defensive gun use listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Defensive gun use to be moved to Defensive Gun Use in the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Personal armor listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Personal armor to be moved to Body armor. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

For the "Weapon mount" wikipedia page.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a clarification for section 1.2 Coaxial:

I believe that the article is confusing "coaxial gun" with "spotting gun."

Coaxial also means "planes intersecting in a straight line."[1] If the barrel of the gun is the z-axis then the x-axis plane and y-axis plane share the same line (the gun barrel going thru the origin 0,0) and, thus, are coaxial. In other words, the traverse and elevation share the same line. This is implemented by a large ball and socket joint with the gun barrel going thru the ball.

A coaxial machinegun can be mounted with the main armament in a turret or on the front or side of an armored vehicle.


72.197.193.4 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Rick

References

  1. ^ dictionary.com

Input please...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the talk page for "Equipment of the United States Armed Forces", I have posted a question addressing most if not all firearms articles. Specifically, what 'wars' to list and not list in the infobox. Looking for a centralized discussion there. See Talk:Equipment of the United States Armed Forces#"Wars" (infobox). Thanks - theWOLFchild 12:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

.357 Magnum

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we not list .38 Special as a chambering for every .357 Magnum gun? It is ambiguous if that gun is available in .357 Magnum and a .38 Special only chambering too. Yes, .38 Special can be used in .357 Magnum revolvers, but so can .38 Long Colt and .38 Short Colt but we don't have to list that. It's explained in the .357 Magnum article. Same goes for .44 Special and Magnum, .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .500 S&W, etc. --Goldenbirdman (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

International Practical Shooting Confederation

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was reading the article under the above title and was surprised to read "Men must wear the holster, magazine holders etc. in the belt at waist level". I have never seen any man at an IPSC match wear a utility belt at that height: Most men wear the utility belt at hip level. The waist is generally just above the navel, so men would have to have short arms to safely reach a pistol so holstered. (220.235.226.215 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC))

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting to be moved to 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Orlando nightclub shooting listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Orlando nightclub shooting to be moved to 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

RfC

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. - MrX 13:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up Henry Repeating Arms

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is was largely marketing stuff taken directly off their website, a product list that fell afoul of WP:NOTDIR, and some general OR observations. The article didn't even clearly state the founding date (1993) or that Louis Imperato founded it. So I did some tagging, removed marketing cruft, added a few basic sources, fixed some formatting, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Munich shootings listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Munich shootings to be moved to 2016 Munich shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2016 Munich shooting listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Munich shooting to be moved to 2016 Munich shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

RFC: Is the Orlandon nightclub shooting relevant (to the firearm article for Sig-Sauer MCX brand and model of rifles/pistols)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See discussion here: Talk:SIG MCX#RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? --DHeyward (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:GUNCRIME

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I've written an essay addressing the criminal use of firearms. WP:GUNCRIME. It related directly to the scope of this project. Where's the best place to include it? Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • WP:GUNCRIME, or "User:Felsic2/Gun use" as the correct address is, isn't a serious WP essay but a POV-pushers' how-to-guide, hidden away in userspace to prevent others from editing it, and doesn't belong here. WP:GUNUSE is another redirect to the same page, so if you see any of those links posted somewhere it's just Felsic2's personal opinions, and not a page that carries any weight. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
All essays are expressions of the views of one or more editors. It's not uncommon to list relevant essays on project pages. Felsic2 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Felsic2, I think you should propose your essay for inclusion into the essay in this project. I think you may have some good points which could be included as gun writing principles, instead of argument, rebuttals, if the project team agree.CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas.W..."WP:GUNCRIME, or "User:Felsic2/Gun use" as the correct address is, isn't a serious WP essay but a POV-pushers' how-to-guide, hidden away in userspace to prevent others from editing it, and doesn't belong here. WP:GUNUSE is another redirect to the same page, so if you see any of those links posted somewhere it's just Felsic2's personal opinions, and not a page that carries any weight."--RAF910 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a personal essay. Per WP:ADVICEPAGE, this Wikiproject's guidelines have the same standing as a personal essay. Is there any disagreement over that issue? Felsic2 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Users, criminal and non-criminal

Latest comment: 7 years ago36 comments7 people in discussion

I have some questions about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines.

1) WP:NPOV says that article structure needs to be neutral. Two sections, "Criminal use" and "Users", establish very different criteria for inclusion. Many articles contain lists of police departments and military units, some obscure, and some of those lists are very long. At the same time, the inclusion of criminal uses is very restricted. Wouldn't it be more neutral to use the same criteria for both? Why aren't standard WP policies sufficient? Is there even a need for these sections?
2) Editors refer to the consensus in favor of them. Where were these guidelines approved? Was there a vote or community input?
3) What is the status of these guidelines in the scheme of things? This page about projects seems to say that guidelines like these have essentially no more weight in content decisions than personal essays: WP:ADVICEPAGE. Is it wrong?

I realize that some editors consider criminal use to be political content and so may prefer to avoid this discussion, but I hope someone involved in the project can reply. Felsic2 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines were set in place years ago, before I came on board. I don't think it is so much political as it is more of a tendency to clutter the article with basically trivia. We have similar guidelines for pop culture, video game use and movie use. Police and military use is a completely different ball of wax as their use and the purchase process is quite significant and notable. Criminal use is not as restrictive as you think unless you want to list every liquor store robbery where the thief used a Lorcin 380, or things of that nature. Something like the Pulse shooting in the SIG MCX article, I felt was completely appropriate. You would not get an argument out of me with P-32 PF-9 being the Zimmerman gun, either. But that's just me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the Zimmerman gun was a Keltec PF-9, not the P-32. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok, either way a cheap piece of plastic shit.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, many LE gun purchases are not notable at all, as the only source anyone can find is their own website. OTOH, many criminal uses are quite notable, being recorded in many secondary sources. So why not just use conventional WP policies to decide which to include? Felsic2 (talk)
I would disagree as they are often the subject of press releases and articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, so why don't we just rely on the sources to tell us what's important? If a lot of good sources report something, than it's more important than something reported by few or no independent sources. That's how the rest of Wikipedia operates. Felsic2 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for these "guidelines"? Felsic2 (talk)
If you want to dig through the history of that and pull it up, feel free, I know that you know how to do it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to find it. I saw one discussion among about a half dozen users back in 2007. But users keep referring to a consensus, so I'm assuming there's more than that. Felsic2 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I would say the point has a measure of consensus. Consider how long it has been part of the project page and how few people have chosen to try to challenge it. I would consider that implicit consensus. If you think it's wrong then perhaps you should propose a change and see where it goes. Springee (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What's their status? Felsic2 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you answered your own question.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping there's an answer that we can all agree upon. If this is represented this as a policy then maybe that's over-exaggerating its status. What importance in the regulatory scheme do you think it has? Felsic2 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think some initial users created their own general principles separate from WP:GUNS and never documented the principles in WP:GUNS, but still applied the principles and referred to the principles in discussions, edits and reverts, which caused confusion, at least to me. The only documented principles I know are in WP:GUNS which states it is not a WP Policy.

Criminal use I think is use of a gun in breaking a law, like killing people with a gun in a mass shooting, or in a theft. Users are people who use a gun, for military, civilian legal use or criminal use. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Functionality and availability are significant to the description of any device. Use of a specific firearm model by a public agency like a police department or military force implies a considered decision based on testing of affordable designs to determine which model meets required reliability standards within the available budget. Use by larger organizations implies more extensive testing, while use by multiple smaller organizations often reflects affordability or availability based on mass production. Firearms used by single individuals are more likely to be selected on the basis of availability. (for example, the home-made firearm used to shoot British MP Jo Cox)
I suggest use of a specific firearm by any individual is of trivial importance to that firearm article unless the source provides useful information about functionality. For example, a shooting situation where an individual is armed with different weapons, but one weapon either causes a greater number of casualties than the others, or causes more casualties per cartridge fired, implies that weapon was superior to the others. Inclusion of information from that source might be non-trivial if the source described the reason for that casualty difference: Did the other firearms jam? Was their ammunition defective? Was the selected firearm more accurate? Did the selected firearm use a more powerful cartridge to effectively penetrate shielding material or inflict more extensive wounds? Thewellman (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The criminal use of a gun itself can be important and notable, even if the the functional comparison information is not known; no one may actually know why a shooter chose a gun, the shooter may not be rational; just that the shooter used the gun in the shooting.
I didn't mean to imply identification of the firearm was of trivial importance in articles describing the individual or the event -- merely that identification of the individual or event was often of trivial importance to articles describing the firearm. But unknown bases for selecting the firearm would seem clearly within the realm of non-encyclopedic speculation. Thewellman (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
regarding "identification of the individual or event was often of trivial importance to articles describing the firearm" I think the opposite, identifying the notorious use of a firearm in an event, in a firearm article is important, because a firearm does not exist in pure isolation, the firearm is part of the world, and an encyclopedia reports facts about the world, like notorious use of a firearm in an event, within the firearm article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I understand your position, but it seems inconsistent with Wikipedia coverage of criminal use of other devices. To take motor vehicles as an example, the Oklahoma City bombing is unmentioned in the Ford F-700 redirect, the 2014 Isla Vista killings and automobile assaults are unmentioned in describing the BMW 328i Coupé, the police shootout following the 2015 San Bernardino attack is unmentioned in the Ford Expedition article, and the 2016 Nice attack killing 84 is unmentioned in the Renault Midlum article. Thewellman (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thewellman: Your first response mentions a number of "implied" factors in the choice of a weapon by a LE or military agency. However that's all they are - implied. We don't actually know, in almost every case, why a particular firearm is chosen. It could be because the sales rep wore a tight mini skirt, or took the chief out for a round of golf. It could have been the result of a political fight. The weapons could have been donated by the US military, and they might be sitting in a storage room unused. Unless there are sources we just don't know. Whatever the case, these unknown forces shouldn't be the basis for our editing decisions.
You say further that the historic use of a firearm is trivia. I don't know how you define "trivia", but these are the only mentions of most firearms that are ever made in mainstream publications. It is literally what makes them notable outside of a narrow group of hobbyists and professionals. I agree that the performance of a weapon in the real world, successful or unsuccessful, is part of the story of that weapon. That's why those historic uses should be included, not excluded. If a sniper's rifle makes the longest recorded kill, we mention that. If a target pistol is used to win a competition, we mention that. It's logical to discuss how a gun is used, not just how it's designed.
I have to question complaints about "trivia" when the GUNS project is happy with articles like .458 Lott or .375 Holland & Holland Magnum, which include every conceivable detail about their subjects. Or articles like Dan Wesson M1911 ACP pistol or Zastava PAP series, which have no assertions of notability or significance beyond their existence.
Regarding your second response, you list a number of items which aren't included. But you won't find any project guideline or advice page which specifically prohibits including those things. Their inclusion or exclusion is the result of normal editing process. Note that Ford Bronco includes mention of the OJ Simpson chase, that ANFO includes mention of the Oklahoma City Bombing, and that Pressure cooking mentions the Boston Marathon bombings. There's no guideline or advice page prohibiting those mentions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink doesn't say that articles about cookware may not include their use in terrorism. Nor should it. That would be beyond a Wikiproject's scope.
There are arguments to be made for or against the inclusion of gun use in any article. Why does this project need a special rule prohibiting the inclusion of reliably sourced information? Why aren't the policies and guidelines that are sufficient for the rest of Wikipedia good enough for this project? Felsic2 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
With respect to your first point, the difference between unknown and not available in secondary sources is an important distinction when describing military hardware. Secrecy often delays release of the performance specifications of military weapons testing, but United States DOD procurement procedures are fairly well documented. As you suggest, there are two reasons to classify information as secret. The obvious one is to deny potential enemies information about limitations of military hardware. The second is to avoid embarrassing high-ranking decision makers like those who may have negotiated with the long-legged sales rep in the tight mini-skirt. My security clearance wasn't high enough to offer an informed opinion on the latter; but, on the basis of professional experience teaching Navy and Marine Corps officers about the military weapons they would use and might encounter, I can assure you the lower individual cost of small arms encourages more rigorous testing programs than may be required for more expensive sophisticated weapons.
Earlier commenters have answered your later questions. It appears to be a consensus to avoid disproportionate volumes of information relating to criminal use. Every drive-by shooting requires both a motor vehicle and a firearm; but few editors are adding criminal use information to motor vehicle articles. Unless editors become as diligent about documenting motor vehicle deaths as they seem to be with firearms deaths, we won't know how Wikiproject automobiles might react as muscle car, pickup, and 4-wheel drive articles grew obituary sections of paragraphs about pedestrians killed by speeding, road rage, and drunk drivers. Thewellman (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Thewellman, "regarding inconsistent with Wikipedia coverage of criminal use of other devices." There is no prohibition that I know, you could add the notoriety information you wrote into the articles. WP is a work in progress, per WP: WP:SoFixIt. I added the Ford info into the Oklahoma city bombing. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in adding such information; because I regard it as trivial to the article subject, and I am troubled by the social consequences of glorifying illegal behavior. Thewellman (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thewellman: Regarding acquision by police departments and foreign militaries - these are different procedures then used by the US armed forces. In almost every case, we have no idea how they chose to acquire their weapons. Ditto for criminal users. So they're not that different. Which brings back the original question - why do we need a special rule that treats two kinds of users differently?
Regarding "consensus" - where is it? Where was this consensus formed and who participated?
Regarding "glorifying" subjects - I don't think anyone wants to glorify crimes, nor do I think that writing about them glorifies them. Does writing about wars glorify war? Does writing about bullets glorify them? We have hundreds and hundred of often very long articles on bullets. Do they deserve glory? Or is it more a matter of just writing about the world we live in from a neutral point of view, neither glorifying nor denigrating topics? The latter seems like the right approach - treat all topics the same wheter we like them or not.
Regarding "disproportionate volumes" - That's a judgment call. But we're only talking about adding links to notable crimes, the ones that have received enough attention to have WP articles written about them. The number of notable crimes committed with identifiable firearms is not huge. Again, compare that with the unlimited number of police departments and military units we list in firearms articles. If the Glock article has room for about 100 notable official users, why doesn't it have room for 100 civilian users?
Regarding "drive-by shootings", there are only about 10 that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Category:Drive-by shootings. However comparing guns to cars is unequal. A) Car articles don't list every police department that uses a particular vehicle. B) There's no special rule which says that we're not allowed to include criminal uses.
The issue here is not about the general principle of excluding or including criminal use in particular firearms articles. The issue is this Wikiproject's special rule prohibiting inclusion. So far, I haven't seen you justify the need to have this rule. Why can't the editors of articles be able to reach their own local consensus without being told that this rule has a special status preventing the addition of sourced information to Wikipedia articles? Felsic2 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Felsic2: Thank you for presenting your perspectives. From your use of the term bullet to describe cartridge articles, I can tell we have significantly different interests in this subject. I value your participation, but I find your arguments as unconvincing as you seem to find mine. I have said my piece, and it seems unproductive to continue this discussion if you don't want to hear it. I don't wish to imply my perspective is more important than yours, so I will leave it to the other project members to verify consensus still exists. Thewellman (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thewellman: Thanks for participating. I do know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, and between a magazine and a clip. However common usage equates the two, and common usage seems sufficient for general discussions. I do appeciate hearing your perspectives and you rasie valid issues, but they weren't focused on the specific topic of this thread - the Wikiproject's content rules. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


User:Felsic2- regarding "this Wikiproject's special rule prohibiting inclusion" what rule are you referring to? I don't find any written rule in WP:GUNS essays prohibiting inclusion of criminal use, only this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Criminal_use which is a general principle allowing inclusion of notable criminal use.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


@CuriousMind01: This is a good question. It gets to the heart of the issue: what this section says and how is it used. It raises the issues of why it matters and how to solve the problem.

What it says: The section says that criminal uses are allowed. However it sets restrictions on their inclusion: increased notoriety, sales, or legal restrictions. It says that criminal uses may only be included under certain circumstances. Events which don't meet those criteria are excluded. Not only are there no such criteria elsewhere on Wikipedia, even this Wikiproject doesn't use it for other material. This section says in forceful language that some facts are prohibited, no matter how well-sourced. As written, this section is a prima facie violation of the neutral point of view policy.

How it's used: On talk pages this section is treated as dogma to shut down conversations, as if it were adopted Wikipedia policy. They treat it as a done deal, with this section binding on article editing. For example: "Please stop adding this to the article. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is quite clear and the recent school shootings do not meet the criteria for inclusion." Or "We don't litter Wikipedia gun articles with that kind of trivia. Read the project guidelines. Criminal use is not noteworthy unless it greatly increased the gun's notoriety. There may be lots of news articles that tell which type of gun the killer used, but that doesn't mean anything. Cite a source explicitly saying that this incident greatly increased the Beretta CX4's notoriety or sales, otherwise the information is not notable and for that reason will continue to be removed." (There are many examples like this.) It's used the same way in edit summaries: "rv per WP:GUNS#Criminal use", "Reverted per the Firearms Project Guidelines", etc. This section is used as an excuse to prohibit material, with the asserted status of a policy. It's not used to include info.

Why it matters: This Wikiproject section is skewing the editorial content of Wikipedia. Firearms articles include lengthy, unsourced specifications of interest to enthusiasts alone. They exclude material of interest to general readers, such as famous cases in which guns was used. This section's requirements, and its use, violate core content and editing policies. They say articles should be constructed neutrally and that projects do not own topics or set policy.

What's the solution? : There are no other "criminal use" sections in other Wikipedia projects. It's unnecessary and misused. The simplest solution would be deleting it. Another solution would be having a general "users" section that sets neutral guidelines for all material about users, good or bad, cops or criminals. Another would be to set content-neutral parameters for users, such as quality sources that mention the topic, and suggestins on how to treat various uses. Felsic2 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Judging by Felsic2 edit history, his creation of a how to insert gun crimes into gun articles essay, his endless questions and filibusters on various gun related talk and board pages, he obviously believes, assumes and is devoted to the idea individual criminal users of firearms choose to use specific firearms for a specific purpose (that is to kill as many people as possible). Therefore, a criminals choice to use a specific weapon/s is by itself notable and must be included in every single firearms article. The idea that criminals have no choices and simply use whatever weapons that fall into their hands undermines his augments...I Vote to oppose the addition of gun crimes to every gun article....Felsic2 history of making the same rejected augments over and over again on dozens and dozens of pages is by itself problematic and shows a pattern of behavior that should be closely examined.--RAF910 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I think comments in this section should be about the subject content onlyCuriousMind01 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC).
First, that is exactly the response that I would expect from someone who read Felsic2 how to POV pushers guide.
Second, when an editor wants to add a body count to every gun article on Wikipedia. It's fair to ask why?--RAF910 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
User:RAF910] 1. My comment is based on what I read in Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks "Comment on content, not on the contributor." 2. I do not see any body count discussion in this subject.CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The following is a recent edit to the Mini-14 page...

"Effects of criminal use

  • Byron David Smith used a Ruger Mini-14 to kill 2 teenage intruders at his home in Little Falls, Minnesota. The incident led to debate over what circumstances allow a homeowner to defend his or her home with lethal force. Smith was found guilty on two counts of first degree murder, and subsequently sentenced to life in prison.
  • Norway shooter Anders Behring Breivik shot dead 69 people at a summer camp on the island Utoya. July 22 2011."

This is what I'm talking about. Now you can call it whatever you want. However, by any other name, it is still a body count.--RAF910 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:RAF910, Thank you for the info, still body count is not a subject in this discussion. fyi, I do think notable criminal use should be in gun articles, as part of the mission of WP to report notable facts, and is allowed by the project guidelines and not be censured(much as I may dislike the facts). For example, I think the current notoriety section in the SIG MCX article is appropriate, neutral and non-inflammatory, and does not duplicate facts in the linked article. I do not know the history of the comments between editors above, but per WP I only comment on the topic in this section, within this section.

I think the 4 examples you listed are 4 instances of notorious criminal use of the gun, and are to be stated in the Mini-14 page but written something like the example below, with a link to each of the 4 articles. I don't think the criminal facts are to be duplicated and repeated within the gun article, but do think the notoriety be listed so as to be comprehensive in an encyclopedia, else I think the article is deliberately negligent and censured and unintentionally glorifies the gun. The gun is not an isolated item, it is used in the world, and good and bad uses are described in an encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia stating notable facts, good and bad, more than a catalog. Much as I dislike the bad facts, or info and photos I dislike in other articles, I accept their existence in an encyclopedia, in gun articles, and the other articles.

Draft Example: "Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents."CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • That'd be sensible. Felsic2 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would support a bulleted list of article links for incidents (both positive and negative) with notability sufficient for separate wikipedia articles. See Also might be a more neutral list title option than Notoriety or Popular culture. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This could be a response to the topic below, #Where should criminal use information be included?. Thanks for that input. My only objection to "See also" is that it doesn't indicate the actual connection. I agree that "Notoriety" and "popular culture" aren't good terms for this kind of material. Felsic2 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@RAF910: The topic of this thread is the content rule that excludes nearly all mentions of historic criminal uses of firearms while permitting the inclusion of every police and military unit that merely owns the same firearms. There's no doubt that there are differences of opinion, and that the circumstances will vary from article to article. But the content rule creates an unlevel playing field, where some content is allowed and other content is effectively censored. So, I've asked three questions: 1) why does this rule exist, 2) where is the consensus for it, and 3) what is its actual status in the policy hierarchy. Do you have answers to any of those? Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

LR-308 vs DPMS vs Armalite AR10

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there an article that covers these different patterns of 7.62x51 rifles? I've looked at the articles individually and none seem to really explain the difference or showcase the fact that they may be incompatible. What we have is the AR10 article which states "These rifle differ from both the current and original Armalite AR10 in a few minor dimensions that make some the Armalite AR10B not as modular as the rest of the AR based firearms." Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Fragmentation of articles on gun laws/gun politics

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

A user today moved Gun Politics in Switzerland to Gun Laws in Switzerland. Seems fine to me, what discussion of politics there is, is quite minimal. However, doing some poking around, There seems to be quite a lot of fragmentation in this area.

If you go to Category:Gun politics by country it's kind of a soup. Some articles are named Gun Politics, some are Gun Laws, and there's articles in the category, and articles as subcategories. As well, if you go to the main Gun politics page for the category - Overview of gun laws by nation There's a mishmash of different naming conventions among the main articles referenced, e.g.

  • Firearm legislation in South Africa
  • Firearm ownership law in China (which has considerable historical content, and little law content)
  • Gun legislation in Germany
  • Firearms policy in Ireland (which redirects to Firearms legislation in Ireland)
  • Firearms policy in the United Kingdom
  • Gun law in the United States
  • Gun laws in Australia

Along with the expected bunch of 'Gun politics in' articles.

I would personally lead towards renaming all such articles as "Firearm law in", but since some countries have additional sets of rules for non-firearms, such as pellet guns, I think the original "Gun law in" is more appropriate, because no distinction needs to be made within the article if there are specific laws for non-firearms covered as well. The whole 'Firearm/Firearms', 'Law/Laws' thing adds further complication, as pretty much all are valid.

I also think that where appropriate, a separate 'Gun politics in' naming convention is fine, as in a separate Gun Politics in the United States, where the matter is contentious.

Thoughts? I'm not a member of the project so I may be missing relevant issues. As well I don't want to step on anyone's feet. Anastrophe (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Anastrophe I think Law (a set of laws or a single law) and Laws (a set of laws) and Legislation (a set of laws) are used interchangeably, guns includes firearms, so I think "Gun Laws in.."is the more general term to use for the 1st seven items in your list above.
Gun politics (conflict and debate over gun laws) is a separate subject than Gun Laws, and the use of "Gun politics in..." is a correct term to use. CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This all arose out of a discussion/disagreement at Template talk:Gun politics by country with @Scolaire:, @Nick Cooper:. I think "Gun politics" is actually a better general title, since it covers the issues and history that leads to laws being passed. Articles only about laws could end up caught between dry repetitions of code and uninformed paraphrasings unless there are good secondary sources. But I'm fine with any solution which makes sense and doesn't delete information. Felsic2 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Cool. No need for further discussion here in that case. Anastrophe (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Anastrophe, I would prefer to keep the discussion here. A template talk page is not an ideal place to talk about article naming and content. I would have brought it here sooner, but I didn't know what was the relevant WikiProject.
The simple fact is that none the articles that were in the template are about gun politics except the United States one. Felsic2 moved most of those articles to "Gun laws in..." yesterday with the edit summary, "covers laws rather than politics", but the same applies to the articles that weren't moved. "Gun politics", in the sense that we understand it, i.e the debate between "gun rights" and "gun control", does not seem to exist anywhere else in the world; if it does, it is not covered in those articles. Note that there isn't even a Gun politics article: it redirects to Overview of gun laws by nation. Nick Cooper remarked in the discussion on the template talk page that "the problem overall is that many of the country pages seem to have taken the American original (created back in 2004, although the same editor also created the Australia and UK pages on the same date) as a model". And it shows. Firearms articles in several cases have an Americocentric cast. For instance, several articles talk of the right to "keep and bear arms" in the constitution – complete with wikilink – which is more a reflection of the American debate than a discussion of the constitutional basis of firearms legislation in the country concerned. Indeed, Gun politics in Honduras has an entire section just to say that their constitution doesn't have a provision for the right to keep and bear arms.
Even the phrase "gun laws" is a particularly American one. You don't hear it in Europe, and I'm pretty sure you don't hear it in the Antipodes. "Legislation" is the word used in Wikipedia article names, not "laws". "Firearms" (or less often "firearm") is used in article naming except for a type of gun (Rheinmetall 120 mm gun) or a phrase (run and gun). This project is called Wikiproject Firearms (plural), not WikiProject Guns. All of those articles should be renamed to "Firearms legislation in...", as should the Gun laws by country template and the Firearm laws category. Naming an article "Firearms legislation in..." need not prevent discussion of pellet guns. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
As regards categories, all of the articles that were renamed yesterday have been taken out of Category:Gun politics by country, but there are still subcats which are misnamed. Category:Gun politics in Australia, for instance, contains articles on legislation and on shootings, but only one article on a political party. I don't know what the best category name would be, but it should be renamed and taken out of the Gun politics cat.
I think we have an opportunity to sort out this tangle now, and I think we should take it. Scolaire (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

My only concern is that someone will come along and look at material in an article and say, "this isn't about laws" and delete it. If we can be sure that good material isn't going to be deleted because of renaming/rescoping then I have no objections. Felsic2 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any good reason to delete material in an article because the article title and category accurately describe its subject matter. I think you can rest assured on that point. Politics can certainly be discussed whenever it is relevant to the legislation. After all, nobody ever deleted material on legislation when the articles were called "Gun politics". Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Trigger finger

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just noticed Trigger finger (medical condition); would the medical use be the primary topic, or the firearms use? (we don't seem to have something listed for firearms at triggerfinger (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Trigger finger is a medical condition/subject/topic. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding "worst mass shooting" to various firearm articles

The SIG MCX page now has had added a "worst mass shooting" that is included under criminal use for the firearm, contrary to WP Firearm Criminal Use guidelines. An RFC on this has been posted on the talk page. You may comment there on whether or not this should be inserted into firearm articles. 16:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Rfc at Ruger Mini-14

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added a request for comments in the Ruger Mini 154 talk page. I could not get the link to work here.

The title is: == Rfc: Add major incidents to Ruger Mini 14 Suggestion Comment WikiProject assessment Reply Comment ==

The RFC instruction said the Rfc notice could be added to a project page. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Rfc: Add major incidents to article? (strangely, on my browser this doesn't link to the thread, just to the top of the talk page). Scolaire (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Where should criminal use information be included?

Latest comment: 7 years ago38 comments9 people in discussion

While Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use prohibits most inclusions, it does permit a few (a controversial stand, in my opinion). However it does not offer any advice on how to include the information or where. That's the main job of advice pages. Should it be written as prose in the "history" section? Should it be mixed in with other users in a bullet-pointed list? Should it be in a standalone section, and if so what's the best section heading? Some options include: "Notoriety", "Civilian users", "Usage", "Criminal users", "Service use", and "Incidents". Felsic2 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I Vote to oppose the addition of gun crimes, criminal use or whatever you want to call it section to any gun article--RAF910 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
So your view is that no article about guns should ever mention their use in any crime whatsoever? In that case you do not support the current WP:GUNS#Criminal use section. That makes two of us. If there's no consensus for it then we can just delete it and work through these issues on an article-by-article basis.
You know very well what my position is. Now, you're just being argumentative. Maybe, you should just reword again and start another new discussion.--RAF910 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You've now made it clear that you oppose the current section. However you never addressed the topic of this thread. Maybe you'd like to start another one, but this one is on which section to place criminal uses. Felsic2 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're just being argumentative.--RAF910 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm trying to get consensus on an MOS matter that's within this project's scope: section headers. If you don't have any input then don't argue about it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I have already voted. I'm sorry that you don't like my vote.--RAF910 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
We're talking at cross purposes. I agree with you that the current section WP:GUNS#Criminal use is unworkable, though for different reasons. However as long as it exists, and as long as there are any crimes mentioned in gun articles, it's worthwhile to agree on how those mentions will be handled. They're two different issues. Maybe you meant to reply in a different section. Felsic2 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
NO...I have voted and you are muddying the waters. You are twisting my vote into a pretzel. In order to make it sound as if I agree with you. When in fact, I oppose what you want to do.--RAF910 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
This section is not about voting. It's not about whether to include criminal uses in articles. It is a discussion on how to mention criminal uses when the community reaches a consensus to do so. Felsic2 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't own this page. You don't decide how the discussions evolve. And, you most certainly don't decides who wins and who loses. I have voted and I oppose your position.--RAF910 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position in this thread. I'm asking for input so we can come to an agreement. But if you want this thread to be about something different then I'll change the heading to reflect that and start a fresh discussion on the MOS issue. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think in a "Criminal Use" section. If the sources justify notoriety, then a "Notoriety Section". I think an encyclopedia should include the criminal use in gun articles. An encyclopedia is more than a gun catalog. I think the use should be linked to another article describing the crime, and not repeat the information.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest both criminal use and notoriety are inappropriately subjective. Neither is widely used in other parts of Wikipedia including articles about recreational drugs which seem to be a similar focus of police activity. Firearms have long been a tool of opposition to governments in power, and one might find differing opinions about whether criminal use would include incidents like the battles of Lexington and Concord, the Easter Rising, or the Deir Yassin massacre. Thewellman (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Criminal use is violating a law, like murder. Notoriety-fame for bad actions-could be subjective, but is determined by sources, like Bugsy Siegal ran Murder Inc but was never convicted of Murder. Criminal use and notoriety and their variations are used throughout Wikipedia. Firearms in opposition to a government in power is called Insurrection and Rebellion, or Revolt. A massacre is identified by sources. Another category is Vigilante. I think, use the specific term in an article as needed, and criminal use or notoriety would apply in most cases. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The question is: Whose law is being violated? Criminal gangs are often defined by persons in power to include organizations not in power, but that power may shift in time. Individual perception of similar firearms incidents involving Al-Qaeda, Black Liberation Army, Dutch resistance, French resistance, Haganah, Irgun, Irish Republican Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Lehi, Pesindo, Special Organisation, Symbionese Liberation Army, Viet Minh, or Viet Cong might be very different. Neutrality within the Wikipedia world community is best accomplished by avoidance of pejorative terms. Thewellman (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Thewellman, I think. "Criminality" is a somewhat POV perspective. What about police officers who are convicted of using a gun for manslaughter? What about the SS, deemed a criminal organization by the international tribunal? What about the Provisional IRA?
I think it would be better to have a neutral heading, like "history" or "famous uses". Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Thewellman, I don't consider the terms "Criminal Use" and Notoriety perjorative terms or conflict with Neutrality.

I think not stating important facts is censorship.

"Criminal Use" is defined in multiple laws for different subjects, guns, communications, personal Info. et al, see Google Criminal Use The crime could be specified in the article. Crimes may vary by society and organization, but crimes like "Murder" in the USA, for example, has been a crime for hundreds of years in many government jurisdictions irrelevant of who is in power.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
True. But what about articles like Accuracy International AWM, McMillan Tac-50, and Barrett M82, which describe the weapon's use in sniper shootings? What about accidental shootings? Famous owners? Instead of having separate sections for every kind of user, it makes more sense to me to have a catchall section that can include all of these users without separating legal and illegal users. Felsic2 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So many hairs being split.... in general, I also oppose the inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Categorically the inclusion in the firearm articles. Demonizing and anthropomorphizing the instrument is part of an ideological agenda. Did anyone notice the rifles used to stop the San Bernardino killers? It is enough to say they were shot death without listing every officer that fired their AR at the terrorists. The agenda to include criminal use here is to note every ill-intent of a person with a firearm while broadly ignoring productive uses which far outweigh illegal use and is undue weight. The make and model can be noted in the event itself (though the effect is to create an instant demand which is not particularly encyclopedic). Firearm articles that include use history should be limited to broad historical use (i.e. "the gun that won the west" or the use of the M1 Garand as U.S. battle rifle in WWII, or replacing the higher power M-14 with with a lighter round M-16 for vietnam). Terrorists and criminals use a number of items to commit the evil that lurks in their hurts but these agenda driven accounts seek only to demonize firearms with undue weight accounts of rare use in crime. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: @Niteshift36: The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms# Criminal use says that some criminal uses are notable enough for inclusion. That issues isn't the topic of this thread, but people can say whatever they want. However it appears that both of you oppose the section as written. If so, it would seem that there's no consensus for its continued inclusion. I don't see anyone here or above defending it, explaining why it exists or how it came to be. Does anyone want to come to its defense? Felsic2 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:DHeyward If you wish to add legal gun use to the San Bernardino or other articles, you can. I think important facts about both legal and criminal use belong in Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. I don't think info about legal or criminal use has to be repeated in a gun article, the info can be in the incident article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The section outlines a few instances in which criminal uses may be included. No one on this page has supported the section's reason for existing and a few have opposed it explicitly. So it seems there's no longer a consensus for it. Unless anyine has anything to say in its defense, I'll go ahead and either delete it, or cut it down to say that the decision should be made article by article. Felsic2 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anyone defending or supporting the current section, and the disagreements here over its provisions appear to show a lack of consensus. Going twice... Felsic2 (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Felsic2, you had multiple questions at the top of this section, but I don' think anyone answered the questions. I think you would be better posting 1 question at a time. I think if you delete the criminal uses section, if deletion is what you are proposing, that would not be the correct action based on the initial questions. I think the section could be modified, but try asking 1 question at a time, or post a draft revision for comments.CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
There was really just one question for this section: "Where should criminal use information be included?" Perhaps you're thinking of the previous section, in which I asked for anyone to justify the necessity for the section, to point to the consensus supporting it, and to describe how it is viewed by the project. Suffice it to say that none of the questions in either section have really been answered, though I'll credit Thewellman with making an effort to discuss this section's question, though he replied in the other section.
At this point I think there are two options: 1) delete the section 2) replace it with a simple suggestion, such as "Material on criminal and other uses should be decided on a case-by-case basis on the talk pages of each article." Any preference? Felsic2 (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Since no one has defended the existing language or objected to the proposed changes, I went ahead with it. Felsic2 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Felsic2: And I swiftly reverted you since there's no support for your changes here. Do not make large changes without a clear and explicit support for your changes on the talk page, before making the changes. Not being opposed is not the same thing as being supported, you need an RfC with a clear consensus supporting you to change a long-standing prior consensus. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no support for retaining it either. Silence equals consensus. What is you objection to the change? Felsic2 (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Silence does not equal consensus. Silence is also just recognition of the lack of consensus. If there were true consensus for change, then there would be no silence. Rather, there would be support. Lack of comments implies that the status quo remains. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Felsic2: My main objection is fragmentation, having a large number of parallell identical discussions in many different places, a scenario where the most fanatical individuals with the most time to spend here in the long run always are the winners, since other editors tire of repeating the same things time after time on different talk pages, and just drop out of the discussions. So no, I do not support your proposed changes, not now, not ever. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand your objection, However you need to understand that Wikiprojects are not allowed to create would-be policies like this. The existence of this material confuses editors who mistak it for a policy. The simple fact is that editing decisions are made at individual articles, not at Wikiproject talk pages. The fanaticism of editors on either side of the issue, or at any location, is beside the point.
Given the fact that we, the members of this project, are not allowed to say what this material says, what should we say about criminal use content? Felsic2 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
"The existence of this material confuses editors who mistak it for a policy." It would be helpful if you included a link to some of these discussions on article talk pages where editors mistook this Wikiproject's guidelines as policies. Anastrophe (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Anastrophe: I've started a fresh section to discuss the use and misuse of this section. # Misuse of "Criminal use" section I'm out of time again, but I'll continue to add examples in the next several days. Felsic2 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I can compile a list of talk page postings and edit summaries in which this material is cited explicitly or implicitly as something that governs Wikipedia content. It'll take a while, but perhaps it's worth reviewing how this material has been misused for years. See WP:ADVICEPAGE for the actual status. FYI. user:RAF910 has started a thread at WP:ANI saying I should be banned for proposing changes to this page. Felsic2 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
No, that is not what RAF910 has done on WP:ANI, he has proposed a topic ban for you from all firearms articles because of your repeated POV-pushing on a large number of such articles, not because of you having proposed changes to this particular page. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's precicely what he wrote:[67]
The only example of my supposed "POV pushing" he gave was that edit. However this is not the place to discuss editor behavior. Felsic2 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ EFOIA. "nws2074.tmp". Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-05-08. Retrieved 2009-03-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Rathjen, Heidi; Charles Montpetit (1999). December 6: From the Montreal Massacre to Gun Control. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-6125-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms/Archive_9&oldid=1142661232"