Talk:V-42 stiletto

Can someone please help me make this article better? I made this article, and i have a seriously hard time improving it. Im a noob at this, I have difficulty finding sources as I only got this from a documentary of the Devil's Brigade. HELP Terminator50 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Terminator50 UPDATE: I just wanted to say how I'm so impressed that an article i created turn out this way. Way to go guys!! Thanks for making the article great. Terminator50 (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename article

FROM: V-42 combat knife TO: V-42 Stiletto

In the book - Buerlein, Robert. (2002). Allied Military Fighting Knives: And The Men Who Made Them Famous.(pg 101) Paladin Press. ISBN 1581602901 it states the following:

“ The nomencalture on this quartermaster form would lead us to believe that the proper name of this knife is the "Fighting Commando Knife, Type V-42" or converting U.S. Army nomenclature into "English", "V-42 Commando Fighting Knife." Although this may be the proper name, somewhere along the way the knife started being referred to as the "V-42 Stiletto" and this what it is called today, correctly or incorrectly. Possibly the "42" stood for 1942, the year of the design and the "V" for "Victory". ”

I will wait two weeks before making the MOVE to allow editors time for input and attempt to build a consensus on the correct article name. Chessy999 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture you have is of the Special Forces Shoulder Sleeve Insignia, not the crest. Obviously, that is not a V42 in the SSI. The crest has a V42 with two cossed arrows behind it, and a scroll reading "De Oppresso Liber". If you can't find it type Army Heraldry in your search engine and look it up. I will be glad to send you an image if you cannot find it. SFODA 745 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Hey guys.. Whom ever uploaded this pictures, I wonder if it might be possible to get another one taken with a hand or quarter or some other such object to give some impression of its size? I've held one of these weapons in my hands, and the pictures truly do not give off the impressive size of the knife currently.... Dphilp75 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reproductions

I've removed the section of reproduction because 1) it is irrelevant to an article about the actual historical weapon and 2) it violates Wikipedia policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Larry Dunn (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, it is pertinent to Wiki prject cutlrery, it contains no external links, and it is sourced better than most of the rest of the article. Do you want to take it to arbcom?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not discuss first?

This section is like adding a section to an article on the M1 tank to feature every model or reproduction ever made of it, or a section to an article about a celebrity to discuss each of his or her impersonators.

The authentic weapon is encyclopedic, reproductions are not.

Furthermore, listing commercial products in an article not about those commercial products has no bearing on the historic weapon, but is advertising or promotion of the copies. The fact that they are no longer being manufactured doesn't really matter as they are still in the market.

The basic question is, would you open an encyclopedia to look up the Hope Diamond and expect to see a few paragraphs on every cubic zirconium copy of it ever made? Why are copies relevant to the actual item? Larry Dunn (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Again I disagree. I'm not talking about fakes made in Taiwan. The Case version made from 1989-1993 was identical to the original made durring the war. Case was the manufacturer of these durring WW2, as well. So I'm doing a disservice to readers by putting forth information that the original manufacturer resumed production for 4 years, 50 years or so after they made the last wartime run? By advising that there was a wartime version and 50 years later a "collector version" which has not been made in almost 20 years, I am breaching wiki's policy on advertising? As to the Strider "version" it is not a copy, but a knife based on the original using modern materials like S30V steel and titanium. If anything it would be a "legacy" of the V-42, not a copy or a clone--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguably the same knife made by the same manufacturer would be relevant to this article, under a heading something like Later Versions. Don't think any other copies would be though, for the reasons I set forth originally. They might be copies of the knife, but why are they relevant to the article, about a certain knife manufactured at a certain time?

Let me repeat my analogous question. Should there be sections in articles about the Hope Diamond about all of the imitations that have been made of it? If your answer is yes, think about how it dilutes the subject. Larry Dunn (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it is the same thing. The Hope Diamond is a single item. It may be notable that copies are made of it, I do not know, that is not my field of expertise. We are talking about something different here. A knife model, how many of the originals were made? Several hundred? How many of those originals are still around? How many copies are offered for sale to unsuspecting buyers? What is the impact of this knife on the cutlery industry? Unfortunately we'll never know:

• a Chinese Company (Hanwei Forge) makes an almost exact duplicate of the original.
• Strider Knives made a "modern version" with a titanium handle with proceeds from the sales going to benefit surviving disabled members of the original units (they did the same with a number of other knives from that era).
• Gil Hibben has made a custom version in 440C Stainless steel with a silver wire wrapping (called the "Silver Shadow") which has been licensed by United Cutlery and made in the 10's of thousands; this knife is so prolific it has been used as a prop in everything from Star Trek to Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a futuristic dagger or a medievel one (even though it is based on a WW2 pattern).

All a reader would learn is that some of these knives were made in WW2 and the OEM made a postwar version in the late 80's/early 90's. So basically, the knife must have sucked, because it had no lasting impact on knife design 40, 50, 60 years later. So, no, later versions and reinterpretations have little to do with the original pieces (aside from the fact that a novice collector could easily be mislead into paying several thousand dollars for a close copy from an unscrupulous dealer). Yet this design is another icon in the world of knifemaking. Maybe not as prolific as the Bowie knife of which we no not what the original looked like, but have had over 170 years of copies, inspirations, interpretations, etc. Should the legacy of that knife be stripped from its article because it has no bearing on the knife that Jim Bowie may have had in his belt at the Alamo?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Preliminarily, let me note that I added some indents to your bullet points to make the threaded discussion easier to follow.) Value judgments like whether the knife "must have sucked" are not really relevant to what belongs in a wikipedia article. Concerning the Bowie knife analogy ... the V-42 knife is one specific kind of stiletto, and so that's where you'd draw parallels to the Bowie knife, another kind of knife -- stiletto to bowie, not V-42 to bowie. Did Jim Bowie carry a specific manufactured type of Bowie knife on which we can write an article for an encyclopedia? No, as you've said. Is the V-42 that type of knife? Yes, it is, and we have an article to prove it. So while we might talk about lots of different bowies in the article on that type, we are only going to talk about the V-42 in an article about the V-42. We already have an article on stilettos, and that can discuss different types.

If those other knives that are copies of the real V-42 are worthy subjects of information for Wikipedia, readers need not go ignarant of that fact, as articles can be created covering them. But they are not the V-42 combat knife, so shouldn't be in an article about it, just as an article about the Guadalcanal Campaign should not have a list at the end of it of every game that has ever simulated it, or every movie or book written about it. Does that mean I'm depriving readers the ability to read about The Thin Red Line on Wikipedia? No, they can go read the article about that book (and movie). Larry Dunn (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit -- I just went into the article to add the material about the Case knife as a possible compromise to our difference of opinion, but it looks like it's already in there. I think it makes sense to have that information in the article. Larry Dunn (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While I might like the idea of an article titled: Knives inspired by the V-42 Stilleto I am positive that the usual gang of socialists, hoplophobes, and other non-knife types I come into contact with on here daily, might disagree.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)