Talk:Small arms and light weapons

Added Section on UN Arms Trade Treaty

I expect some controversy on this part. Watch for edit wars. --Petercorless (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate REVTALK - and how does this edit improve article?

Sue Rangell - Re: this edit with edit summary "Fixed POV edits by Lightbreather."

First, please don't use WP:REVTALK. Per WP:EDSUM "How to summarize":

• Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, making collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.

Second, how does returning the word "regimes and" to the section title "Other SALW control organizations" (as in, "Other SALW control regimes and organizations") improve this article? Lightbreather (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not uncivil, an insult, or a personal attack to mark something as POV if I feel it is. If you disagree, explain why something is not POV rather than throwing WP:REVTALK at them. POV is a simple discriptive, not an accusation of wrong-doing.

re·gime [ruh-zheem, rey-, or, sometimes, -jeem] noun 1. a mode or system of rule or government. 2. a ruling or prevailing system. 3. a government in power. 4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.

The word is accurate and descriptive. I will also point out that "regimes and control organizations" is the wording used in the SALW text. If you don't like it, please replace it with something better, but to remove it completely will hurt the article in my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the SALW text that uses regime? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over the UN Arms Trade Treaty

In the United States, conservative gun rights advocates, including elected members of Congress and lobbyists, such as the National Rifle Association have maintained a political campaign to discredit the Arms Trade Treaty, saying that through the treaty the U.N. would deprive the U.S. of its national sovereignty, and deprive its citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, the rumor-dispelling site Snopes.com has refuted such claims as false. In the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty, the sixth paragraph reads, "Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system," which contradicts the assertion the treaty intends to violate any lawful internal rights of any member State. Instead, the treaty is aimed at curbing illegal arms sales within countries or between countries, and to improve controls for the trafficking and stockpiling of military arms and weapon systems.

I am moving this (above) - which was a subsection under UN SALW control efforts - here for discussion. It seems to belong in the Arms Trade Treaty article. Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the sources aren't very good quality. Lightbreather (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition by international legal conventions

These definitions may vary depending on the convention and on the expansion of the term's use over time with the introduction of new weapons technologies and concerns. For example:

SALW include all arms that can be used by one person alone and all associated ammunition, including grenades, rockets, missiles, mortar shells and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), and that landmines can be considered as having similar effects,

Recalling that items such as daggers, machetes, clubs, spears, and bows and arrows are also frequently used in armed conflicts and criminal acts, and that, although they do not fall under the SALW category, their use may need to be regulated,

Recalling also that the definition of SALW should not include swords, daggers, and other items which are not firearms and are not used to cause bodily harm, but as part of the national dress,

Deeply concerned also by the high political, social and financial costs incurred when SALW fuel armed conflict, armed criminality and terrorism, exacerbate violence, contribute to the displacement of civilians, undermine respect for international humanitarian law, impede the provision of humanitarian assistance to victims of armed conflict, and hinder a return to peace and sustainable development,

Recognizing the threat posed to civilian aviation, peacekeeping, crisis management and security by the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of MANPADS,

Affirming that combating the proliferation and misuse of SALW requires coherent and comprehensive efforts by governmental and other players at the international, regional and national levels....

Thus, SALW include grenades, but does not include bows and arrows according to this convention.

I moved this (above) here from the article for discussion as its meaning and source are vague. The first two statements from this "quote" (from (part of) the Inter-Parliamentary Union's 114th Assembly resolutions) it seems are supposed to support the concluding statement (author unattributed), "Thus, SALW include grenades, but does not include bows and arrows according to this convention." The conclusion does not seem to be from the cited source, so whose is it? Is it WP:OR?

If it's to be reintroduced, its point should be better summarized and a WP:RS cited, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

I have add dictdef tag because if something "is a term" then it is a dictionary definition per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This needs referenced material to show this is encyclopedic or it needs to be redirected/merged to Firearm since its a duplicate description. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a dictionary definition - it's a legal classification that forms the basis of debate over international arms control treaties - see Arms Trade Treaty and Arms trafficking and Small arms trade. Light weapons are not a "firearm" - this includes mortar shells, HEAT rounds, other anti-tank weapons, RPGs, etc -- Callinus (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Mortar shells, HEAT rounds, other anti-tank weapons, RPGs, Arms Trade Treaty, Arms trafficking, Small arms trade and Gun politics are all "things". If Small Arms and Light Weapons is those first four things then its not a Wikipedia article, those 4 already have Wikipedia articles and we don't group things by "what they are called by". A "term used in arms control" and some form of "definition" (mentioned several time in the article) falls under WP:NAD, Wikipedia does not deal in terms and definitions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The operative distinction is that SALW can be easily trafficked and smuggled across borders, and have arms control treaties written on them specifically by name because they move into conflict zones (see http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15159_en.htm). Give me a few minutes to fix up the sourcing -- Callinus (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The descriptions seem be analogous to Pocket Change, a recognized small amount of different types of coins easily transported, again a dicdef. I can't see how finding more reference defining a definition can make it anything more than a definition. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"remove wanker-added dictionary tag - it's not, it's a discussion of the politics of SALW" -- edit summary by Callinus

As Fountains of Bryn Mawr said "Wikipedia does not contain discussions of politics". It is currently basically a dictionary definition. Any expansion about politics likely isn't neutral or warranted, especially under the current title.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: if you want to improve this article then please don't remove cited information added. -- Callinus (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Callinus: I differ in the opinion that they were improvements. At least part of the addition to the lead didn't appear to be cited (I left cited information added), and wasn't present in the body of the article (the lead summarizes the body per WP:LEAD). Secondly, if controversial additions are challenged, they should be proposed on the talk page to gain consensus.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the change of JBlunk26 (user account created solely for that purpose) from {{dictdef} to {{Copy to Wiktionary}} as there's no consensus. {{dictdef} itself isn't supported by the majority of users involved (me included). Like I said in the diff, there's too much content for Wiktionary. However, if someone wants to create a Wiktionary entry for it, feel free to do so, we don't have to choose between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Small Arms

I think we should merge the Small Arms page here with a redirect. Both pages cover the same subject matter. However, the Small Arms and Light Weapons page has better coverage.--RAF910 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect both to Small arms trade, - There is nothing here. This page seems to mostly duplicate Small arms trade, linking that page in a couple of piped links. Small Arms also duplicates Small arms trade. Once you delete all that, the encyclopedic description that is left duplicates small arms---->firearm, and a laundry list of other weapons under "Light weapons" - someones definition, not an encyclopedic "thing". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"explosive munitions" clarification

If an Individual-Service weapon would fire projectiles that would use explosives [|or combustible fuel] to increase own speed or control own movement (without causing damage to the target, by these resources). From military designations average, i would say it would be a Small Arm, but from English syntax, this would be a Light Weapon.

Should the world combination be rephrased ?

Irvnriir (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Different types of guns 2600:8807:5440:4720:3127:85A8:8752:814A (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)