Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

A huge pile of instruction-manuals for firearms

Hi folks, via archive.org you can obtain a huge pile of instructionmanuals for firearms. Perhaps you like to link them in the corresponding articles or find some other use for them ;-) Access archive.org by https://web.archive.org/web/20180204114622/http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/ HTH + greets from de:PD:WF & germany 80.187.100.131 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I have taken the liberty to add a "Resource" section to the main page including this info...Instruction manuals for a wide range of firearms, in PDF form....We can also use this new "Resource" section for additional sources of information.--RAF910 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Not reliable sources for notability purposes, for the record, but could probably be used for basic factual info. Thanks! ansh666 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that was my thinking. The manufacture is always the undisputed authority on production history and design details: weight, barrel length, caliber, ammunition restrictions, etc.--RAF910 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I went to this page, with a long list of what look like are meant to be links. They don't actually link to anything... Going to that same page from the site's home page is no help, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Click on PDF...the right side of page--RAF910 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@RAF910 in fact a very good idea = "add a "Resource" section to the main page" :-) a well (as subpage) organized pendant in german projekt firearms can be found via: de:Portal:Waffen/Mitarbeit/Quellen_IB.
The folks in the german projekt did a lot to make it look nice and to have comfortable interconnections. In the meantime most of them are tired (or retired) ;-) If you like this, feel free to have a closer look to their former working results. For a better impression about the organisation of this resource areas they can be read in translated Versions: see Sublibary 01 and Libary overview. A similar site in en:WP can be found via Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Logistics#Sources. BTW within de:WP we decided not to connect it from WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Shared_Resources#Technology. Reason was to keep the area calm. A connection from the area "Resource" section to the main page" which you created now was perfect as we experienced. HTH cordial greetings to all members of this projekt and have fun with the stuff. --80.187.109.37 (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC) P.S. I tried to identify active users of this project by the template. Unfortunately, with little success :-(
"Click on PDF" My windows were too small to see those after the page loaded...without scrolling sideways. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of crime to the Smith & Wesson article

There is a debate at the Smith & Wesson article regarding the inclusion of the recent shooting in Florida in the article because it has been reported that the AR-15 used was a S&W model. Springee (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: The debate appears to have jumped right to the straw poll stage already with people !voting on the issue. FYI - theWOLFchild 14:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Springee: thanks for the note, but in the future, please cut out the second sentence to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVASS. ansh666 17:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition of crime to the Modern sporting rifle article

There is a another debate at the Talk:Modern sporting rifle article regarding the inclusion of crime and mass shooting info.--RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition of crime to the Colt AR-15 article

There is a another debate at the Talk:Colt AR-15 article regarding the inclusion of crime and mass shooting info.--RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Same debate, multiple articles... here's a proposal

It appears that proposals to add information on mass-shootings are popping up on several firearms-related articles. As firearms are one of the central components of the subject being debated, I propose we direct all these discussion and their straw polls here to one centralized discussion, seeking one community-wide consensus. Otherwise, we'll end up with a local consensus going one way on one article and another way on a different article, which will lead to further disputes when editors start citing different discussions and their local consensus to support controversial edits to firearms and mass-shooting related articles.

Proposed
close all discussions about the same issue on related articles and have one central discussion here to (hopefully) achieve a single, community-wide consensus. If there is enough support, we'll have the discussion here as an RfC. Thanks
That is what is being proposed. I'd like to see these discussions centralized before they can form conflicting local consensuses. - theWOLFchild 19:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Done.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings

This is a consolidation of similar discussions taking place at Talk:Modern sporting rifle, Talk:Smith & Wesson and Talk:Colt AR-15.

  • There is significant RS coverage of the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings. Should this be covered in any of the relevant firearms articles? If so, what would be the most appropriate way to include this information? –dlthewave ☎ 20:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- my suggestion would be to have the discussion outside of the project space, as this may result in a project-specific consensus, not a community one. Possible venues include WP:NPOVN or WP:VP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: - Every one of these articles falls under this project. To assume bias is a lack of WP:AGF. This is precisely where this discussion should be held. However, that said, there is nothing stopping you from posting notifications on the "WP:NPOVN or WP:VP" talk pages, or anywhere else for that matter, to involve as much of the community as possible. - theWOLFchild 22:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The stated goal of the discussion is to achieve "a single, community-wide consensus". When the immediate reaction is "This is the usual gun confiscator garbage", yes, the location of the discussion appears to be non-neutral. I'm afraid that it would only result in a localised consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: - I'm aware of the stated goal, I wrote it. And while you added the diff of a single, politically charged pro-gun comment, (from a different page BTW), I could also add diffs of politically charged, anti-gun comments, but I won't. Instead, I'll say again, the articles being discussed, and potentially affected, fall under the scope of this project, therefore this is where the discussion should be held. And I will also say again, there is nothing stopping you from posting notifications to as many venues as you like, to ensure the widest community response, and with that, a balanced response. You seem to be treating these pages as different physical locations, and if the discussion is held here, then people can't be bothered to get in their cars and drive allll the way over here. This is just a page of the same website, like any of the other pages you suggested. Please go read WP:AGF and stop trying to derail this discussion. - theWOLFchild 23:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Local consensus for all articles covered by project firearms, which is where the issue lies. Seems fairly reasonable to me. PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Then yet, that's local consensus. In such case, calling it a community-wide consensus is inaccurate. Articles do not "belong" to a project, and the applicability of such consensus would be limited. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not "local consensus"... do you even know that means? This discussion has barely begun and you're already derailing it with repetitive, off-topic nonsense. Do you see a massive pro-gun response here? Are anti-gun editors somehow being shut out of this discussion or barred from this page? Stop this already. - theWOLFchild 23:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Every one of these articles falls under this project. - Ergo the only editors who might have something constructive to add to the discussion—or an opinion that should be counted—are members of this project?
To state To assume bias is a lack of WP:AGF. is a misapplication of WP:AGF, which has nothing to do with natural, good-faith bias due to a special interest in firearms.
stop trying to derail this discussion. (<--- For comparison, THAT'S a lack of AGF) - do you even know that means? - repetitive, off-topic nonsense. - Stop this already. - I'll ask that you moderate your imperious and combative tone when addressing established Wikipedia editors.
This does not belong in project space. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"Ergo the only editors who might have something constructive to add to the discussion—or an opinion that should be counted—are members of this project?" - Oh puh-leeeze. Show me, exactly, where I wrote anything remotely resembling that. And while you're looking, try not to skip the multiple times I clearly stated that notification of this discussion can be posted virtually anywhere on the project. So clearly this discussion won't be confined to the "pro-gun, members-only, secret club" you and your companion seem to think the Firearms Project is.
"I'll ask that you moderate your imperious and combative tone when..." blah, blah. blah. Give it a rest. It's these kind of prechy, off-topic comments that constantly derail any meaningful discussion. You've contributed nothing to the topic at hand and the only purpose of this, your sole contribution here, is to scold me. Well, now I've been told, ok?. So, just as I asked of your cohort, please stay on topic. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 15:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems like every time this happens every AR-15 related article gets spammed with info on it, even if it not the AR branded to the article or a AR at all, which is far from idea. Part of the issue seems to be that AR-15 and other common terms [1] redirect to Colt AR-15, I think a good start would be changing that to Modern sporting rifle. If we cannot do that a tag at the top similar to what we do for the Kleenex article "For the generic item, see Modern sporting rifle." or the AR-15 (disambiguation) might be a good step to avoid confusion. For info on the shootings themselves Mass shootings in the United States might be a good place to expand on them. PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem, which Wikipedia can help fix, is that the term AR-15 is used basically as a designator for all semi-automatic rifles. Twenty years ago the media referred to all of these rifles as "AK-47"s which thankfully ended. The goal should be to inform the reader without sensationalizing the use of these weapons. The mass shooters like the school shooter in Florida aren't experts in weapons and take their cues from coverage. We should strive to be accurate and not feed the sensationalism and hype. This isn't a marketing platform for mass shooters to indulge their wet dreams. --DHeyward (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
♠Since somebody's seen fit to quote me...
♠Every time there's a mass shooting, the gun confiscators come out & blame the weapon for the crime. Every single time. Every time, there's a detailed description, including the size of the magazine. Yet, when there's a car bombing, or somebody drives at truck into a crowd, or somebody stabs seven people, do you even hear the make, let alone engine displacement or blade length? So why is there so much hypocrisy? Guns don't kill people. Show me a single case of a firearm killing someone by itself, & I'll endorse any gun restriction you care to name. You can't. Saying there are millions of AR-15s, or that "guns kill", is disingenuous nonsense. Stop, already.
♠The confiscators don't call for a ban on cigarettes, or jail terms for cigarette company execs, or a ban on cars, or jail for car company execs, which both kill more people every year than guns. Neither do they calling for mention of every crime, or fatal car accident, involving a Ford Fusion on the Fusion page. I call that hypocritical at worst, intellectually dishonest at best.
♠For the record, I'm not an NRA member. I'm not even a gun owner. I'm just sick & tired of the violation of people's rights by the majority. You think it's okay to treat smokers this way because you don't smoke. You think it's okay to treat gun owners this way because you don't own guns or know anybody who does. I'm saying, as clearly as a can, it's not. WP isn't a platform for scoring political points. And for the record, I don't mean to name anybody involved in this discussion, so don't go hauling out NPA. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"Guns don't kill people", Trekphiler? Can you pretend to be neutral? This is exactly why this discussion shouldn't be held in this place, as K.e.coffman argued: too many editors in this project are myopically focused on bullets and calibers. K.e.coffman, do you want to open this up at VP or some place like that? This echo chamber needs clearing out. Before we go there, two quick points: a. we're supposed to give factual information to the reader--sure, and this is factual, and the suggestion that a butter knife would have been just as deadly is disingenuous and intellectually challenged; b. "all these gun blamers just call everything an AR-15"--well, that's how it is reported in very reliable media, who also point out that these massacres are typically followed by that kind of obfuscation: "it wasn't an AR-15, it was an AR-15 style. That is what the Dutch call ant-fucking, and it totally misses the point. DHeyward helpfully pointed out that the Parkland article points to the article for the actual gun used there, but that also isn't the point: we have hundreds of thousands of reader who visited Colt AS-15 to find out about this thing; they should be pointed to the right place, one way or another, and that place shouldn't be called Modern sporting rifle, since that is a euphemistic in-crowd term, as the second paragraph of that article makes clear. Note: I just added a hatnote to Colt AR-15, pending further clarification. Y'all can bemoan the lack of intricate knowledge among the general population, but that's unproductive and unfair. Nor do I remember "everything" being called an AK-47 at one time. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"Can you pretend to be neutral?" I'm not, & I'm not prepared to be dishonest about it. You have a POV on it, too. That's what the discussion is about: balancing the presentation to account for both yours andmine. And there are evidently some confiscators involved, too, or we wouldn't have somebody trying to put the event on the S&W page in the first place: somebody wants to blame the guns for the acttions of the shooter, as if the guns somehow whispered in his ear, "Use me to kill someone!" Garbage. AR-15s aren't made by Watt-Evans Firearms. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Federal Assault Weapons Ban has it in the background section since Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) used a Semi-automatic Norinco Type 56S rifle which is referred to as an "AK-47." Heck, the meme for journalists guide to firearms is here and reflected the "everything is an Ak-47." AR-15s were not popular because they were expensive and unreliable. If you don't remember, it's likely you were either unaware or uninformed. It highlights the problem that it is not models but features that people expect to see. The AR-15 modern sporting rifle evolved through what has become a defacto standard in accessories. The rest of the world is still awash in "AK-47s" because that interchangeable platform is still by far the most common platform in the world and still the most reliable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll add that if you think there is a difference between an semi-automatic AK-47 type rifle and a semi-automatic AR-15 type rifle, you should be able to articulate the differences. To the casual reader, there is not a difference and they both fall under the "modern sporting rifle" article. That category includes the most commonly identifiable features such as "pistol grip" and detachable box magazine." --DHeyward (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As a point of comparison, not long ago I was involved in an automotive RFC related to including information about the Oklahoma City Bombing on the Ford F-650 page as well as the DC Sniper shootings on the Chevy Caprice page. [[2]]. The opinion of uninvolved editors was heavily against inclusion. I would view the question their as similar to here. Is that product uniquely associated with the crime? Would an article about that product talk about the crime? We dealt with, for lack of better terms, weight reciprocity. If subject B is important to subject A does that make A important to B? This topic is more emotionally charged than the automotive example but if we are going to be logical about it the same logic should apply here. Springee (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. And a similar discussion has been had in the past over inclusion of events aboard Nevada on the Attack on Pearl Harbor page; they were considered important to Nevada, but insufficiently relevant to the attack. I've also seen this raised on other matters. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

clarification

I think an experienced and uninvolved editor should post a clear and neutrally written RfC here that spells out exactly what is being discussed and what the possible outcomes are. It seems to me that as a reaction to the recent shooting in Florida, several editors, (some of whom are newcomers, here just for this purpose) are seeking to include mention of mass-shootings and other notable, and possibly controversial, firearms-related incidents to the articles of various firearms; their types, brands and manufacturers. Many other editors have opposed this, the reasons varying from opposing political points of view to reasons supported by the policies & guidelines of this project.

Should it decided that this content is to be included, which articles are 'in' and which are 'out'? What form would these additions take? A "Controversy" section? A section titled "List of incidents involving X"? Would these be detailed entries? Or simple point form additions? (eg: by date, or name of incident) Would there be a limit? (these additions could potentially outweigh the rest of the content of some of these articles). I would do this myself, (and this comment almost appears like an RfC effort), but I have already participated in some of the straw polls so I would be considered 'involved'. Cheers - theWOLFchild 22:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you're just being disruptive. - theWOLFchild 23:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, if that's how the project members react to attempts at discussion and expressions of concern...: off-topic nonsense; anti-gun editors; disruptive, etc. There is nothing stopping you from posting the RfC to WP:NPOVN or WP:VP. You've said yourself that the edits are likely to be "controversial"; why not seek the widest possible consensus and input? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You're still going on about this? - theWOLFchild 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the correct location for this discussion (and RfC). All the subject articles are in the scope of this project. With proper notification (including at the article pages in question) I think we will get our wide range of opinions. Springee (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What to include in an RfC

I initially did not present this as an RfC because there seem to be several aspects that would be difficult to cover in a single RfC. I felt that more discussion was needed. Here are the two questions that currently come to mind:

  • What level of coverage should be given to shooting incidents in individual firearm articles such as Colt AR-15? Should it be none, a simple list, or a more detailed section?
  • What level of coverage should be given to the trend of AR-15 style rifles being used in mass shootings? Should it be included in Modern sporting rifle? Should this take the form of statistical data or a more in-depth paragraph?

Any thoughts before I write an RfC? –dlthewave ☎ 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good questions, but just out of curiosity, haven't you participated in some of these discussions, and posted a !vote in some of the straw polls? I know I have and that's why I didn't write the RfC. I don't want to risk any disputes over being 'involved'. - theWOLFchild 00:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Is it supposed to be written by an uninvolved editor? Is that a thing? –dlthewave ☎ 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a 'thing'. RfCs should be written so they are completely neutral, and therefore should be written by an uninvolved editor. - theWOLFchild 01:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a guideline where an RfC is supposed to be written by an uninvolved editor -- or to say the same thing a different way, I think it's okay for an involved editor to write an RfC, including this one. Of course, the RfC itself should be worded in a neutral way. I'm looking at Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment#Neutrality, where it gives this helpful tip: another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess it from reading the question. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? This is a horrible idea. You're taking three disparate discussions and jamming them together all because they have a common thread of including criminal use? There's one about a manufacturer, one about an abstract classification of firearms, and one about a weapon that is wrongly named frequently. These all have unique concerns, and are unlike the normal discussion about individual firearms articles (where it would be somewhat useful to have an RfC). In any case, no overarching consensus will be able to account for all cases, and that's something that any drafted RfC is going to have to consider. And yes, I agree that any RfC should be at a more visible location like WP:VPP, or at least have notices there and at WP:CENT. ansh666 00:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
My intent is to create one RfC for each question. Frankly I think the misnaming issue can be solved by improving descriptions and redirects, which should be non-controversial. –dlthewave ☎ 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If we're having one RfC for each question, then why aren't we doing on each individual page? This is pointless. ansh666 01:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
There is only one question at the core of all these disputes; "should there be any notation of mass-shootings (etc.) on the articles of the firearm type, brand, and/or manufacturer of the firearms used in the shooting or not?" If so, then we go from there, decide which articles get a notation and which don't, and how it should be noted (prose, point form, etc). It's pretty straight-forward. Furthermore, the discussion needs to be held in one place. Otherwise, we'll end up with conflicting local consensuses, which will just lead to further disputes and disruption. - theWOLFchild 01:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
But each of those is a different case, with different arguments for and against. Not at all straight-forward. ansh666 01:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
How is each a "different case"? At the core of each dispute is whether or not to include info about these mass-shootings. But you're correct that there were "different arguments for and against", that's why the discussion should be in one place. So that all those arguments can be taken into account toward a community-wide consensus. - theWOLFchild 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
In my experience, a more specific question will give a result that is easier to implement and less open to interpretation. Perhaps one RfC with several related questions? –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, whatever. Good luck with that. If y'all eventually find a way to put something coherent together, I'll probably participate. ansh666 08:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I support the idea of a single RFC. I would make it open ended and simply ask, where should such information be included (model page, manufacture's page and/or general platform (generic AR-15 platform page for example)). We should also offer some scope regarding how much should be added to these articles vs just linking to the primary article about the crime or about the topic (mass shootings etc). Springee (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As other editors have pointed out, the only reason people want to add mass shooting and criminal use sections to firearms article, is because they want to add a "body count" to these page in order to sway public opinion. Therefore, I believe that all firearm pages should remain apolitical. These article should only be use to describe the guns and there developmental history. We already have many Assault weapon and Gun Control pages even Mass shooting and Mass shootings in the United States page with a list of the top 20 shootings, and it does not mention specific weapons, only calling them semi-automatic rifle. So, I see no reason why its necessary to add mass shooting and criminal use sections, which others have pointed out, will quickly overwhelm firearms articles.--Limpscash (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe we need to restrict this to one RfC asking what level of coverage should be included on a firearm model's page, this project already has policy on references on pages to notable criminal use of firearms, stating a reference to the crime should be included in the see also section, whilst not my preferred option perhaps the RfC should examine if this is sufficient. Unless consensus from the RfC is significant coverage should be included on firearm model pages, I think we should await that answer before discussing trends and statistical analysis. I am sympathetic to K.e.coffman's arguments about the location of this RfC and at a minimum believe notices of this RfC should be posted at the venues he suggested. As to the confusion between modern sporting rifles vs Colt AR-15s vs generic AR-15s, that is something this project should deal with internally through improving and better defining these weapon's pages, although I am afraid this is not my area of expertise. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This a waste of time. The project already state that criminal use should be limited to a simple link in the see also section, nobody cares. As Limpcash said "they want to add a "body count" to these pages in order to sway public opinion". The only way to stop them is to permanently protect these page, delete crime and mass shooting info when added, and to block users who don't take the hint.--RAF910 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why the generic page is not called AR-15

I'm not a fan of the generic AR-15 page name, Modern Sporting Rifles, because (personal opinion here) think that term would include non-AR-15 pattern rifles such as some Mini-14s, Sig MCX, possibly AR-10s and even AK pattern rifles. Basically it's ambiguous in a way could include rifles that are not variations of the AR-15. Anyway, I hunted down the talk discussion that I believe lead to the current name. It may be useful background as we move forward. [[3]] Springee (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's good name, as it reinforces the idea that for the general population (non Mil & LE) these are for "sport" (not killing people). They're not "assault rifles". I think you even made the point that "AR-15"(tm) can mean a specific product of a specific maker. But "AR-15" is also now in common usage to refer to a wide array of rifles, most of which, but not all, are patterned on the original AR-15. I believe that article does include other types of "sporting rifles", such as the SIG MCX. Perhaps there should be even more content added, such as the multitude of western-made, semi-auto, AK-47 pattern sporting rifles. Maybe even pistol caliber carbines which are becoming hugely popular. - theWOLFchild 01:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
In addition there are AR-15 pattern firearms that are classified as pistols. These are all relatively new developments. The common threads of AR-15s that make them popular are the wide array of interchangeable and compatible pieces and components. Some are AR-15 specific like triggers. Some are standards like picatinny rails and STANAG magazines. What is not related is the misconceptions in the press like "high-powered" ammunition (probably the lowest power, least lethal center-fire rifle ammunition available - it's considered a varmint round). "Semi-automatic" is operation of the vast majority of firearms with a today and differentiates it only from military weapons that have fully-automatic. Semiautomatic fire arms have the same rate of fire as revolvers. The goal of the firearms project is to spot inaccurate descriptions and accounts and make sure the inaccurate information is incorporated. Right now, in the middle of a major news cycle, there is TONS of misinformation. Competent editors understand that these errors are part of being a news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS is why this discussion belong here and why these long standing articles shouldn't gyrate on breathless coverage of fast breaking news.The Orlando shooting is a case in point: the initial report was AR-15. The detailed report was Sig MPX. They are different significantly in operation, notably that AR-15 pattern rifles can't have a folding stock. The Sig can have a folding stock. It's a fundamental and incompatible difference that allows it. The press really means "modern sporting rifle" when it says AR-15 and it could be any rifle, possibly even the bolt-action variants of AR-15 --DHeyward (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- AR-15 style rifle is currently a redirect to Modern sporting rifle. I believe that "AR-15 style rifle" is a better choice for the article title, per WP:COMMONNAME. I first encountered that issue at #Modern sporting rifle? and believe that "AR-15 style rifle" is much more intuitive for the general reader. See for example pageview stats for Colt AR-15 while AR-15 was a redirect to the Colt page. People were clearly looking for info on "AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The "Modern Sporting Rifles" page was not intended to be a generic AR-15. It was created to define the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" which is most commonly associated with generic AR-15s. It became the generic AR-15 page by virtue of its existence, and because we a handful Wikipedia editors are not qualified to call it anything else. If the firearms industry wants to call these rifles "Modern Sporting Rifles" then who are we to say otherwise? If you want to create another page called "AR-15 style rifle" you are welcome to do so, but it will just mirror the MSR page. Or worse, turn into a dumping ground for anything that uses the term "AR-15" like the original AR-15 page which made no distinction between the ArmaLite AR-15, Colt AR-15, M16, and generic AR-15 rifles and did everything in its power to convince the reader that all AR-15s are machineguns. --Limpscash (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Limpcash--RAF910 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The very generic redirects; "AR-15", "Ar-15" and "AR15" should kink to the AR-15 (disambiguation) page. Everything is listed there, giving the reader the choice to select the appropriate article that suits their inquiry. But, they've all been directed to the Colt AR-15 page. This is based on a decision made by 'four editors a few months ago. This is precisely why I'm been pushing to have a wider discussion for a for informed community consensus, so we can avoid situations like this; being beholden to a local consensus made by all of 4 people. - theWOLFchild 02:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I see "...should" this and "...should" that... except, they don't, do they? That's why I brought it up in the first place, to A) ask why "AR-15", "Ar-15" & "AR15" wouldn't link to the "AR-15" dab page (that just makes no sense) and to B) highlight the problems that can occur when a local consensus affects a project wide issue, such as four (4) guys deciding on a controversial re-direct. (4 guys, now it makes sense). - theWOLFchild 15:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notice

An RfC related to this topic has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles. –dlthewave ☎ 17:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So I guess we're moving the whole thing again? To a page other than the project page that all the affected articles fall under the scope of? Why bother having projects? Why bother have a WP:AGF guideline? And, why bother having any kind of neutrality guidelines if a clearly involved editor is not only writing the RfC, but arbitrarily deciding on his own where to have it? But whatever... I guess I'll go and (not) !vote over there. Are we closing related discussions here now as well? (it would be nice to try and keep everything in one place) - theWOLFchild 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Controversial page move

Modern sporting rifle has been "boldly" moved to AR-15 style rifle by an editor who has repeatedly voiced anti-gun sentiment. Their reason given on the talk page were;

  • "Modern sporting rifle is a euphemism that the gun industry created in 2009 to describe modular semi-automatic rifles. The phrase is an artful attempt to recast weapons such as the MCX and the AR-15 (and its variants) as all-American toys. Never mind “quiet and deadly” and “close-quarters battle”: Modern sporting rifle conjures up images of aristocrats riding with their hounds, vacationers knocking clays out of the sky, and ruddy-faced athletes enjoying their autumns in Carhartt jackets and mud-spattered ATVs. The term is a genius act of marketing, meant to bring these deadly weapons into the mainstream and keep them there. It’s also disingenuous hokum that exists to cloud debate, like calling a used car “pre-owned.” Omar Mateen Had a “Modern Sporting Rifle"

I certainly hope that going forward, editors here will follow the guidelines before making any further controversial page moves. - theWOLFchild 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Would have been nice to be notified of this discussion :-). In any case, even the discussion on this page is using the heading “Use of AR-15 Style Rifles in Mass Shootings” (not “Use of Modern Sporting Rifles in Mass Shootings"). "AR-15 style rifle" is WP:COMMONNAME. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily "starting a discussion" about a page move, the onus fell to you to do that before you moved that page (but you didn't). I'm just posting a notice of the move to the talk page of the project that actually covers that article, like you should have (but you didn't). You seem to think that this project, and anyone associated with it, have no business contributing to any decision making about the articles that actually fall under the scope of this project. (Something about "bias" you said? Pfft! Talk about bias...) Lastly, I'm under no obligation to notify you of my posts. - theWOLFchild 02:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "an editor who has repeatedly voiced anti-gun sentiment"? Well, some editors have pro-gun sentiments, and some editors don't like K-pop or figure skating (those are all fools, of course). Please remember that we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to advocate for guns. There is no indication that K.e.coffman is editing against Wikipedia's guidelines, so I would appreciate it if you left those accusations/suggestions/sneers out of your comments--thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Same goes for you, Drmies... I will be pretty pissed off if I find that you have given even slightest hint of accusing me, or even remotely suggesting, that I don't like k-pop or figure skating, they are tops in my books, so let's just be clear about that. As for the page move, by my count so far, about 24 editors have contributed to that discussion, 20 of whom wouldn't have had the chance to otherwise. I think doing it this way forms a much more solid, community-wide consensus that can't be challenged later, and therefore reduces potential disruption. I think that's a good thing. - theWOLFchild 04:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 United States gun violence protests

Project members are invited to help expand and improve the 2018 United States gun violence protests article. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of page move request

A request has been made to rename Modern sporting rifle to "AR-15 style rifle". Please see Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018 for more information and if you wish to join the discussion. - theWOLFchild 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion, but I didn't see any comments specifically calling for renaming or moving the base page. Perhaps it was overcome by events and those comments are all gone now. What I did see was a discussion trying to define an "AR-15 style" weapon and an "assault weapon." What do those terms even mean? In addition to being politically charged, there is no consensus on what those words are supposed to mean. Is a 12th century Battle Axe an "assault weapon?" How about an 1858 Enfield with a bayonet? Semi-automatic, bolt-action, lever action, and even within semi-automatic firearms direct gas impingement, gas piston, and blow-back are legitimate, objective descriptions of the firearms. Everything else is newspeak jabber. TXGRunner (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

WP:GUNS

Hey project members--please consider a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control: WP:GUNS leads to the project, and I wonder if it's not also a shortcut that people consider when they're looking for the Arb case. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Are statements by the NRA WP:RS for views/opinions of the NRA

I've started a WP:RSN discussion on the topic here [[4]] Springee (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Draft:Janz-Präzisionstechnik notable? (German revolver maker)

Anyone interested, please take a look at Draft:Janz-Präzisionstechnik. It appears to be written by a non-native speaker and needs some cleanup, and has only a few cites to German publications. If you have opinions, please just add them to the top of the Draft itself and sign. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I know those revolvers. notable? = yes. technical highlight=interchangebility. see translated story as notable as f.ex. Korth or Mateba. Precision product but much to expensive for normal use :-( greets --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A Voice from Germany

Hi folks, i read and feel that here is a lot of discussion concerning gun-laws, "gun-sporting", and sorrowfully mass-shootings. In Germany the wp:firearms-project had identical problems. We felt unable to handle political requests and discussions. We retracted to the technical side and view of objects. We gave away: articles concerning gun-laws, articles concerning gun-use, articles concerning sports with weapons, articles concerning Category:Military animals + Category:Mythological weapons etc.pp. Why fight things you can't win? Give away to Portal:Law and Portal:Society and Portal:History and Portal:Sports whenever you can. If they like to they can write whatever they want. Remember and argue that firearms-articles are only a technical description - not more. Remember Template:Talk header. Discussions concerning "A human society is a group of people related to each other through continued relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, same interests, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. " can not be content of technical article. Cheers --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for the post. The "giving away of articles" is an interesting idea, but in the end, (to me at least), it's a mark of failure, to communicate and form consensus. We have a Firearms Project for a reason; to oversee and improve all firearms-related articles (predominantly civilian as opposed to military). There seems to be a conception here, (more of a misconception really), that Project Firearms is some kind of "club" and it's members are all rabid pro-gun enthusiasts. The fact is, anyone can contribute to any firearms-related article, and anyone can call themselves a "member" or "contributor" here, (I believe there may be a push on to change monikers from the former to the latter). Even the most staunch anti-gun advocate can be a part of this project. If anything, it should help bring balance, as long as they, (well, everyone really) can remember WP's policies and guidelines on balance and neutrality. It's been a struggle lately, especially since the latest mass-shooting. There has been significant failure here so far, on the part many users, from both ends of the gun debate spectrum, to remember those P&G's on balance and neutrality, as well as to adhere to WP's core values of communication and cooperation. I can only hope that once some inflamed emotions have died down, common sense and collaboration will take over and any affected articles that need it, will be brought up to WP's standards, without having to pass off the responsibility for that to other projects. Thanks again, and all the best to you Wikipedians in Deutschland dasWOLFkind 04:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Tom, while I certainly understand the attraction to retreat into the purely technical side and avoid conflict, I fear ceding subject matter areas exclusively to those where there is an overlap between areas serves to marginalize those with a degree of subject matter expertise and interest, and increases the likelihood many errors and unsupported opinions will be introduced. The inevitable conflict between polar opposite opinions presents a difficult challenge, but I think developing a consensus results in better and more stable articles. Then again, maybe Thewolfchild'd view is more realistic: we just need to wait until the mass hysteria subsides and the irrational fear of inanimate black metal objects fades before we can attempt to develop a consensus based on rational discussion. TXGRunner (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
OK thx.--Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Add this sentence under the section Ruger AR-556

The Ruger AR-556 is one of the most popular entry level AR-15 and also being a popular AR rifle model in general, it's favored, for the same reason the M&P 15 Sport 2 is liked, for the AR-556 has features such as a forward assist and dust cover which like it's Smith and Wesson counterpart, sets it beyond most entry level rifles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltaforcespecops (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help for commons pics of Approval Marks and Logos of Proofhouses

Proofhouse Abu Dhabi
normal use ~ 70px

Hi folks, for Proof_test#Proof_marks and general purpose concerning Commons:Approval Marks and Logos of Proofhouses i like see pics from Logos & Marks (official document of austria) on commons. The pics are free as government release. See a translation of the used technical terms. As i am not familiar with requests in Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop i want to ask anybody here for support to transfer the pics to commons. Please help !!! Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help !!! Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on NRA advocacy for black gun owners

I'm placing this here per a request:

There is a new RfC on the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners [[5]]. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section. . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?

Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article [[6]]? Springee (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing notable entries at List of assassinations by firearm (where firearm used is known)?

Just dropping in to see if anyone notes any major omissions at List of assassinations by firearm. To be on the list, we need something more detailed than "handgun" but I've generally been including significant assassinations if we at least know the model and/or cartridge of the firearm through RSs. I'm particularly interested in adding any rifle assassinations to the list, since those are somewhat rare cases. If you have any thoughts, ping me here or feel free to pitch in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RC for specialized for WikiProject Firearms / to whom it may concern

Hello to whom it may concern ... and to Colleagues who like to use it:

Hope this can be useful for some who like to use it. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Following standards organizations (SAAMI and CIP) in use of cartridge names, i.e. remove leading decimal.

According to the SAAMI FAQ (see page 3), there is no leading decimal before a proper cartridge name: "A decimal point is never included preceding the numerical caliber component of any cartridge name. That is, “308 Win” is correct, but “.308 Win” is not. Of course, decimals are included as needed in metric cartridge names such as the 6.8mm Remington SPC."

CIP uses the same convention on their website and cartridges in their database: proper cartridge names never have a decimal point leading the caliber component.

Both standards organizations do use leading decimal points for references to a caliber or bullet size. For example, ".264 caliber bullet" and ".240 bullet" is correct, but proper names are "220 Swift" or "338 Federal" for example.

These are the standards bodies for ammunition (the members of which are the ammunition manufacturers), so the convention they established is proper (in humble my opinion). I was working on .30-06 Springfield wildcat cartridges article when the issue came up and I found the SAAMI reference which establishes the proper reference. Most Wikipedia articles use a leading decimal point before all standard (English) cartridge caliber names. The task of correcting this is massive and as a newbie, I know there needs to be some sort of consensus on whether Wikipedia will follow the conventions established by the standards bodies (ANSI, SAAMI, and CIP).

The point of this post is to seek comment from others and see if there is any consensus in support of bringing Wikipedia's reference to proper caliber names in line with the standards organizations. If I can get some feedback, I don't mind working on it over time once there is consensus.

I originally posted this in the talk of the article I was working on, but was told to move it to the project page. If this is in the wrong section, incorrect format, or I am not following protocol, please let me know.

Thanks, TXGRunner (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

  • We might consider redirects as an alternative to renaming articles. Since SAAMI was formed in 1926 (and the convention of interest was presumably adopted at some later date) it is likely many of the cartridges developed prior to 1926 were also identified with the preceding decimal point by their manufacturers. Some modern cartridges for which SAAMI standards have not yet been adopted may be similarly identified with a preceding decimal point. Other English speaking countries may consider SAAMI standards less significant for cartridges developed in their country prior to adoption of the metric system. Thewellman (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World, 15th ed, Gun Digest Books, Iola, 2016, ISBN 978-1-4402-4642-5.
  2. ^ John Taylor, African rifles and cartridges, Sportsman’s Vintage Press, 2013, ISBN 978-1-940001-01-2.
Other refrences do use it, for example Bryan Litz's Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting.[1] Even if some don't use it, standards are a good thing and I think we should defer to standards organizations unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. TXGRunner (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

References

  1. ^ Litz, Bryan (2012). Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting (1st ed.). Cedar Springs, MI: Applied Ballistics, LLC. ISBN 978-0-615-67255-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Couple of points; first, this is the right place for you to post this. Most, if not all, these articles fall under the scope of this project. Second, there is really nothing stopping you from just going ahead and boldly making these changes. You have sound reasoning and it's supported, so go for it. There are, it seems, a great number of pages that will be affected, (just put ".45" or ".38" in the search box and see all the pages that show up in the drop down box). While it may be a good idea to post here seeking consensus, even more so, posting here is a good way to find people to help out with this potentially enormous task. - theWOLFchild 06:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree this is the correct place to raise this, but now it has been raised I do not agree wholesale bold moves should be considered. Due to the number of pages involved, this is now a topic that consensus should determine. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC).
Do not do it. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we consider "official standards" but do not privilege them over all other sources. There are many things that have official names that are not commonly followed in full exact detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Privilege them? Standards exist for everyone's benefit. They promote safety, facilitate communication, and reduce friction. Grammar and spelling are just standards we accept because they help us understand one another. I realize you are referring to WP policy, but I am dumbfounded by the concept that considers standards and standards organizations as "privileged" or non-authoritative. I guess I am at odds of WP guidelines as I think standards should be encouraged and followed unless there is a compelling reason to not follow standards established by recognized standards body. My apologies, I am very new to this; I am just stunned by the notion. I'll go read the policy. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the position. Thank you for pointing out the policy. TXGRunner (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
Roger, I read through the policy. I understand the preference for common names, but there are qualifications. The difference between .308 Winchester and 308 Winchester, spoken or written, is not like the difference between Bono and his real name. If you are like me, when you search in Brownells, MidwayUSA, or some other engine for ammunition or components, you type in "30-06," not ".30-06." However, maybe I am odd. The policy goes on to qualify how common usage is determined, specifically, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." A recognized standards body (in this case ANSI, SAAMI, and CIP) are scientific bodies. I think the emphasis on "major" and "quality" means the Texas Shooting Journal does not weigh equally with a standards body made up of 30 independent firearms and munitions manufacturers. Still, this is open to interpretation and, in support of your point, the policy clearly states "most frequently used" which raises the unanswerable question of whose usage counts and who takes the count. TXGRunner (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
Even going by commonname, how often are the decimals used compared to not? And that's just in writing, in speaking terms, the decimal is virtually never mentioned. I think this is worth having an RfC for, as CmV31 said we should determine a consensus on this. - theWOLFchild 19:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I was the one suggesting it be posted here, since this affects so many pages. I also think it's an extremely bad idea. I've never seen a round described in any authoritative source without the decimal. (No, it's not used verbally; I've always taken it to be presumed in those instances.)
IMO, this is suggesting the calibers are mere numbers with no reference to actual bore diameter, or associated with some other measurement, like shotgun gauge numbers are. IMO, doing that's a mistake, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Dropping the decimal doesn't mean they are mere numbers, just proper nouns. This fits because, for example, 222 Remington uses a .224 diameter bullet and 256 Newton is actually a .264 caliber cartridge. In these instances, the numbers are part of the proper names, not a measurement of the cartridge design. TXGRunner (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
Trekphiler I see your point, but if both SAAMI and CIP are going that way, I think it would be good to see if WP, as leading resource, was on the same page so to speak, as the industry leaders on standards (not they always agree, but anyway). But that said, I don't feel that strongly about it and I would be fine if this change wasn't adopted. Just the same, there probably should be an RfC on it. (jmho) - theWOLFchild 03:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
♠I can appreciate the view that designators aren't true reflections of bore, but by that reasoning, none of the metric calibers should have "mm" attached, either, because they don't exactly reflect the case measurements.
♠More than that, even allowing you get every decimal usage converted, you're just begging for an ongoing edit warring (of a sort) as people unaware of the SAAMI &c standard (including me, before this began) changing them back, based on usage in damn near every gun mag & book published in the U.S., Canada, & IDK where else. That ongoing problem is unlikely to go away. Is that really what you want? I normally don't oppose adopting a more-accurate usage, but this is loosing Godzilla.
♠As for RfC, yeah, making if official wouldn't hurt. IDK if it's necessary at this early stage, but... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Except that "mm" is part of the name chosen by the cartridge developer. I think you have a point here (the standard is inconsistent), but to achieve consistency we'd need to either drop "mm" or we'd need to add "inches" or a quote mark to every standard/English cartridge name. I'll leave the quixotic effort to achieve consistency to the people at SAAMI and CIP.
I am sure you're right, there would be a low-intensity edit war, but that is no different than similar edit wars with corrections on punctuation, especially where there is some disagreement, like the Oxford comma. I'd probably need to add a 'Talk' comment on each page explaining the leading decimal was dropped to conform with SAAMI and CIP naming standardization. Education is another hurdle, but I suspect most people wouldn't even notice. TXGRunner (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
The counterpoints are equally valid. In many cases, like the "mm", the preceding decimal point was similarly part of the name chosen by the cartridge developer. And like omitting the decimal point, many omit the "mm" when speaking of metric cartridges as the "7.62 by 39", "8 by 57" or "7.62 NATO". As a practical matter, the Wikipedia search function will find the article named with a preceding decimal point for individuals who omit it. Thewellman (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree 100% with TREKphiler that if this change went through. it would cause a great deal of flip-flopping edits between the new and the old... but that on it's own is not a reason to not make a content change. Imagine where this project would be if we were afraid to make changes because "some people won't like and will keep changing it". This is why we have consensus and page protection and watchlists and admins, etc., etc. That aside, TREKphiler may also be correct that it might be early for an RfC, but I'm still not totally convinced on this idea, either way, and would like to see what other opinions and ideas an RfC might bring to the table to help sway this one way or the other. But I'm not writing one now, I'll wait and see what other comments come along. - theWOLFchild 00:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Roger (Dodger67) is correct, WP:COMMONNAME should be followed. A quick look at recent stories in some major firearms, shooting and sporting publications show all retain the decimal point: American Rifleman (2 Apr 18), Field & Stream (22 Mar 18), Gun Digest (18 Mar 18), Guns & Ammo (9 Feb 18), Outdoor Life (2 Feb 18), Shooting UK (22 Mar 18) and Sports Afield (no publication date, but first story under Guns & Gear). Just because some technical regulatory authorities have recently adopted a naming convention does not mean it is most common naming convention. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC).
♠IMO, following the common usage is the way to go.
♠That also suggests a change to the MOS for use of "mm". Because I evidently wasn't entirely clear, before, that means a change from WP's guideline to use "# mm" (space added) to the common-usage "#mm" (no space added). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's responses and feedback. I think the clear consensus is against using the naming convention adopted by the standards bodies (ANSI, SAAMI, & CIP) and there is no need for additional discussion or an RFC unless or until a majority of publications begin to adhere to the standards. TXGRunner (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

Is the Jacob Parakilas mentioned in the media section above worth mentioning?

Earlier this month an older article was added to the media section above [[7]]. I'm not sure the article or source are significant enough to bother mentioning. For what it's worth the group, Action on Armed Violence, doesn't have a wikipedia page and doesn't seem to be of much significance. It isn't a media outlet rather a gun control group. The article is basically the author complaining that Wiki editors didn't feel a notable crime should be mentioned on a page (ie a Weight argument). Since the article was published consensus has changed the material has added. Thus both the Wikipedia system is working and the article is kind of pointless now. Even if consensus hadn't changed, why would this author's opinion be worth listing? The founder of the group does have a wiki page but it's tagged as poorly sourced Iain Overton I would propose removal. Springee (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed Springee (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal use

The closing statement for the RfC regarding use of firearms in mass shootings includes the following:

This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with care taken to avoid trivia and a strong reliance on reliable sources.

There was no support for limiting criminal use to a link in the See Also section so I have removed that sentence from the style guide. To encourage unfettered discussion on article talk pages, we should avoid having any overly-prescriptive statement on the project page. I propose replacing Criminal use with the following:

Inclusion of notable criminal use is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The level of detail should reflect prominence in reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT, and indiscriminate lists should be avoided per WP:TRIVIA.

Any thoughts? –dlthewave ☎ 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ｔｏｍ (talk • contribs) 05:04 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I would keep it as is (post the recent removal of the see also only comment). This is an area where WP:weight doesn't provided as much guidance as we really need. Yes, plenty of sources may mention that a particular gun was used in a notable crime but does that make the crime notable in context of the gun? What is often argued is essentially resiprocity of notability. That is, if an event is notable and an item was a notable in context of the event then reverse must be true, the event must be notable in terms of the item. Of course this isn't true, for example a RFC here found that overwhelmingly the DC sniper attacks were not notable in context of the Chevy Caprice [[8]]. It's perhaps an example of emotion over logic that the Bushmaster rifle page does mention the crime[[9]]. Anyway, I bring that up simply to explain why many editors are against these inclusion even though reliable sources about the crimes (rarely RS's about the gun) make the connection. I think the current text tries to get at that. Citing trivia has been a problem in the past as editors are, understandably, relevant to claim a notable murder or shooting is "trivia". Springee (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
All that RfC did was set us back at square-one. We're going to see continued, separate debates springing up on individual firearm-related articles which will lead to conflicting local consensuses. Some articles won't have any content at all about illegitimate use when there should be some kind of brief note or particular event mentioned, while other articles will have lengthy sections about illegitimate/criminal use and/or mass-shootings/murders to the point that those pages will be completely unbalanced. I think that RfC was a wasted opportunity. Even now there is persistent disruption on numerous firearm-related articles and no clear, solid subject-specific guideline to help keep things in order. Eventually it'll slow down, but then there'll be another mass-shooting, and it'll just start up all over again. - theWOLFchild 16:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the project page in light of the RfC? –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Thewolfchild, the rushed nature of the RfC has meant there is now no coherent policy at all and no consensus on a way forward, is a real shame. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC).
  • Well, considering that you have been on multiple pages claiming that this project is irrelevant, and has no say over local consensus. What do you want us to do? Disband the project? --RAF910 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Firearms can be deadly ... never handle them without care.
If I may react on "Any thoughts? from –dlthewave" ??? Yes there are thoughts. Just to compare with Marlboro (cigarette) ... Cancer ? Yes it is mentioned in this article ... but Tobacco packaging warning messages etc. are described in other articles of wikipedia. There is no need to have criminal warnings in each single article of firearms as if they were tobacco packages. WP:NPOV and encyclopaedic use are not to be seen in doing so. For sure some ideological motivated people would like to see this. In my opinion questions of crime should be canalized in special articles. If nothing else can be helpful ... ok just begin some of this kind of articles. In germany we just have some discussions with guys who see a need to report about "gangsta rap" and Glock-Pistols ;-) compare de:Glock-Pistole#Aufstieg_in_den_USA, there in "US-Popkultur hat, lässt sich vor allem im HipHop und Gangsta-Rap erkennen. Die Gruppen Three 6 Mafia, Cypress Hill und TRU verwenden die Glock schon im Titel des Songs" ("US pop culture has its roots in hip-hop and gangsta rap, and the groups Three 6 Mafia, Cypress Hill and TRU already use the Glock in the title of the song.") Cheers. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The project page should provide guidance in applying policies and guidelines to the subject area. I'm concerned that the current essay is often cited as a reason to exclude any criminal use that has not directly led to gun control legislation, which does not reflect PAG or wider community consensus. I believe legislation was originally intended to be an example of notability criteria rather than a requirement. My suggestion is to rewrite this section in a way that clearly defines it as a recommendation rather than a guideline, using words like "should" instead of "must". It might seem tedious to have similar discussions on multiple talk pages, but each case is different and consensus is to decide each on its own merits. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to come to some agreement about how we would suggest applying WP:weight in these cases. Really, these issues come down to opinions on weight. Some people feel that if the crime was significant then that establishes weight for mention of the crime on the gun's page. This might be seen as a universal model of weight. Others, and I am generally in this camp, feel we have to look at weight in context of the subject of the article. One way to do that is look at how the material is handled in external sources about the gun. If articles about the Smith and Rugger M22 don't mention the crime then it can be taken that external sources don't link the crime to the gun even if external sources link the gun to the crime. I'm going to wear this example out but as an example consider the D.C. sniper attacks. Very notable crime. The rifle and the Chevy Caprice were both discussed in the news reports, the Caprice was especially significant since it was modified to be a hidden shooting nest. The rifle was basically a standard AR-15 variant. The crime is mentioned on the rifle page yet a well subscribed RfC was heavily against including the crime on the car's page. Clearly people felt that the crime didn't have weight in context of the car. We see many editors claim the significant thing about a gun is what crimes it was used in. That is a POV but it also gives context to why some feel there is weight for inclusion (universal model of weight) while others see the gun as something separate from the crimes committed with (the weight in context model). I think it would be best if we offered this sort of guidance. Springee (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable approach. Would it be appropriate to make an exception for shootings that break a record or have a significant societal impact? –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "breaking a record". The current project recommendation would suggest yes, we should include the crime if it had a major impact on society. What counts as major is another question. I think people could also argue about weight. Take the Port Arthur and Colt AR-15 case. I've been following the gun debates and politics outside of Wikipedia for perhaps 15 years. It wasn't until the recent Wikipedia discussions that I learned it was a Colt AR-15 used in that crime. Most articles and mentions I've seen simply say semi-auto rifle (type not specified). So a reasonable argument can be made that weight doesn't support inclusion in that case even though the crime is VERY significant both in terms of Australian gun laws and gun control debates in the US. I think the "also see" recommendation was a bit of a compromise between these two positions. Maybe it still is and in cases where the weight in context of the gun is limited we should suggest a see also link but in cases where RS suggest weight in context we should recommend text. Sadly I think it will always come down to some type of argument. Springee (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
A weapon is a weapon. Wether it is used in a crime (or legally to kill people in f.e. in wars) depends on the circumstances. Shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo was a crime, shooting the Romanows was a crime, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy was a crime, Drumhead court-martials are known with crime cases, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act knows crime cases, mass murder and Genocide are crimes. Millions of weapons have been used for crimes since Stone Age times. If it is a target to deal with this in an encyclopaedic way the crime cases should be in the first focus. Already well organized i see Category:Killings by type or Category:Crime by type or List of types of killing. I should be no problem to organize categories like "Crime by weapon" ... "Crime by pistol" ... etc. pp. The List of assassinations has cases beginnig with 117 BC Category:Crime victims has much content. Obviously there is a lot of encyclopaedic work which can be done. The way to strengthen to focus here to some specific weapon-models disregards the general scope of the crimes in historic and global view. Stubs like Goyases School shooting are an embarrassment and should be improved. The List of school shootings in the United States (beginning with July 26, 1764) is also an embarrassment and should be improved. For firearms related articles it will never be possible to find a WP:NPOV way to decide wether to include or to exclude crime related information, unless it is done in a special article like John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@all here is a confusion concerning wp:disc see [10] It is inhuman considering that "breaking a record" (in killing people?) could be a guideline for wikipedia. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I will note that project content guidelines cannot go against broader consensus (whether stated in policies, guidelines, or well-attended RFCs). For example, WikiProject Greece cannot state it's acceptable to use F.R.Y.O.M. to refer to Republic of Macedonia in certain cases. How project content guidelines reflect the aforementioned broader consensus is up to editors. --NeilN talk to me 13:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

just to confirm & understand it correct: broader consensus can not be to support "breaking a record"s (in killing peoples?) ??? --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Ｔｏｍ, your question makes little sense to me. Please know the difference and distinguish between Wikipedia guidelines and project content guidelines. What are you referring to? --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sry, i'll try to explain. If i understood you (as i thought) there are WP:Guidelines with an higher impact than project-guidlines can have. Humantial reasons should be founded within general guidelines. To point out records or similiar often finds conflicts concerning WP:NPOV. BTW Sniper#Notable_military_marksmen_and_snipers is a similar problematic field. WP should not support heros who shot **** people. Ok just to mention them, strictly obeying WP:NPOV is part of WP ... but not more. WP:NPOV is one of our not to be discussed pillars, which has to be regarded for articles concerning fireweapons as well. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Ｔｏｍ, how much or how little to mention these people is up to editorial discretion. "WP should not support heros who shot **** people" seems to run afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED (coverage is not "support"). "Ok just to mention them, strictly obeying WP:NPOV is part of WP ... but not more" is your opinion and you are free to argue for that but I suspect you'll get little support if the first sentence I quoted is your rationale. Others may have different opinions, based on the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The trouble with categorizing by weapon is, & given the claim of fansite tone at the S&W page, I get the feeling the desire isn't [[Category:Murders by rifle]], it's [[Category:Murders by AR-15]] or [[Category:Murders by Smith & Wesson weapons]] or [[Category:Murders by assault weapon]]. Needless to say, IMO that's a non-starter. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I changed "... it must meet some criteria" to "... it should meet some criteria" to prevent the recommendation from being interpreted as a mandate. –dlthewave ☎ 22:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
As a non-native-speaker of en:language others should comment this change(s). I'm unable to overview further consequences. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have yet to see a substantial valid reason for the included criminal content in the extent they are trying to include it, even trying to take over lede statements. This content is in many articles devoted to it. Why not just a link like see also? The more they are pushed on this the more they start tearing down these article claiming not sourced or not encyclopedic or any number of things. I believe this is a effort to get others to back down or they will remove such and such. I believe the more they claim we are paid editor or a employee or some devoted fan are just there efforts to deflect why they are here and hide there motivation. Why not just be honest about it? -72bikers (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Is the overwhelming community consensus at the Village Pump not substantial enough? –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok now you are just splitting hairs. -72bikers (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes this discussion remains me to other discussions I tried to follow. And yes I also happened to meet professional editors which were something like anti-gun-lobbyists or perhaps hired by them. BTW at this point I'd like to quote Friedrich Nietzsche: “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with 72bikers comment. Some editors here have been going to numerous firearms articles and adding new 'criminal use' sections and at the same time, gutting them of significant content. I'm not sure this is an improvement in every case, and I don't quite see how the recent RfC supports that. What came out the RfC was "to evaluate on a case by case basis". Where is the "evaluation" or local consensus supporting these changes for each, individual article? When all this debate started right after the Stoneman shooting, I said then, as I say now, we have to guard against putting these articles out of balance. The extremely minute illegitimate use of some firearms, weighed against their overall legitimate use must be taken into account. But some of these articles don't even have information about their intended, legal use. Just some historical, developmental and technical info, and now a 'criminal use' section. Eg;

Firearm x was first developed in 19-whenever, by the Amce Dynamite Co. in Somewhere, USA. It comes in 'various' calibers and 'various' models, It's y long and weighs z.

Criminal use
  1. mass-shooting a
  2. mass-shooting b
  3. mass-shooting c
  4. mass-shooting d
  5. mass-shooting e
  6. mass-shooting f
  7. mass-shooting g

End of article.

What is a reader going to take away from an article like that? Now, to be clear, I don't agree with the outright banning of any and all mention of criminal use, but I'm not sure these dedicated sections are the way to go either. What's to stop their continual expansion? We need a way to inform readers that a particular firearm was notably used in a notable incident, without overshadowing (or potentially overshadowing) the rest of the article.- theWOLFchild 22:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: could you point out an article that has the format you describe? The extremely minute illegitimate use of some firearms, weighed against their overall legitimate use must be taken into account. This is incorrect, due weight is based on RS coverage, not real-world usage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Uh, no... that is not what WP:DUE is based on. Of course, all information in an article must be supported by RS, but that doesn't mean you can just cram in as much info as you want on one particular aspect of the article's subject, and think RS means "no limit". All aspects must be balanced, and not evenly, but proportionately to the prominence of each aspect. The one aspect of firearms that a particular group of editors here has been putting a great deal of effort and energy into adding and expanding is criminal use. But there are other aspects of the firearm; it's development, history, military & police use, technical specs, statistics, variants, conversions, significant add-ons, etc., etc., and of course, intended legitimate civilian use. In most, if not all, cases, all these aspects together outweigh any criminal use. It doesn't matter how many sources you can find for one aspect over another, it's what even just a few sources can confirm. Some people here have either lost sight of that or never got it to begin with. One event, even with dozens, or hundreds of RS providing info on it, is still just one event, and more tragic does not mean more prominent. The Stoneman shooting, 17 dead, 17 injured. The Las Vegas shooting, 59 dead, 851 injured. Each still a single event. And the news cycles for each? About the same. Now to answer your question; is there currently an article exactly like that? No. But with the current trend and no limitations, there very well could be. Would you be ok with that? - theWOLFchild 16:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In fact, the Bushmaster XM-15 article is almost is exactly what you just described, except for the "Variants" section.--RAF910 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
On a side note, I have to ask; what's the deal with the "broken rifle" image that Ｔｏｍ added into Dlthewave's OP? - theWOLFchild 22:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry and apologize. This was a wrong position by mistake of me. I just tried to have the first pic a little higher than the second. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. I found this pic in the article War Resisters' International wherein at position War_Resisters'_International#See_also there are some links to anti-weapons-movements. Anti-weapons-movements could be seen as the counterpart of pro-weapons-movements. This is just about my feelings which I have (about maybe unwanted polarization) when I read most of this discussions here.
Ｔｏｍ - Excuse me, but I don't quite follow the point here. The image is representative of an "anti-weapons movement", and you posted it to off-set what you feel is too much of a "pro-weapons" sentiment here? On the "WikiProject Firearms" talkpage..? Do I have that right? - theWOLFchild 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
♠The idea reciprocity is automatic strikes me as faulty reasoning. Even a mass shooting, in the history of a firearm that might stretch 30yr, let alone 100, isn't more than a blip. In the history of a company with over 100yrs' history, even less so.
♠I also notice this isn't being applied in cases of cars & trucks (let alone, frex, sneakers). In the past cases of nutjobs driving into crowds of people, were there ever calls to include the crime(s) on the page of the vehicle used? No. Even the Caprice in DC only seems to have attracted attention because there was a firearm involved. Can you say "double standard"? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The RfC had a clear consensus. Are you willing to accept that outcome? –dlthewave ☎ 01:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jimmy-Wales-Be-Kind-To-Each-Other-To-Improve-Wikipedia
Dear Dlthewave, from your question I feel a subliminal threatening gesture. This discussion has clearly shown that there are aspects that were not considered before in RFC. Even from your side, the need for corrections has been recognized. It can hardly be a privilege reserved for you if necessary to adapt the results of the survey as you like it. Basically, I see that your side with a vengeance to complete a mission whose final result is determined from the outset. The involvement of the specialist authors seems more than an annoying exercise here. Anyway, the respect for the longtime co-authors is missing here. Exploiting specialist knowledge for readers is the encyclopaedic task. It can not be a task to establish original WP:OR research in weapons articles ... unfortunately, the mixing of technical articles with politics and crime is exactly what is being tried here. Partly and with limits, understanding was gained and consensus was found. Trying to interpret this consensus again and again for the purpose of your own mission is not nice. It would be nice if you could show yourself a little more affable. Please show more respect and less aggressiveness. I hope my words do not sound too weird ... maybe it lacks due to my language skills ... maybe the translator is to blame. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
My assumption is that the editors who participated in the RfC considered all aspects. The closing admin encouraged folks to come forward with any concerns, yet nobody chose to challenge the outcome. We are talking about corrections or changes to the recommendations on the project page, not changes to the consensus at Village Pump. The current project coordinator is banned from editing in this area, so I'm stepping up to implement the changes in the project. –dlthewave ☎ 12:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
fyi I did[11] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record the comment you linked is timestamped 14:20, just before you posted the link here.–dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "There was no support for limiting criminal use to a link in the See Also section so I have removed that sentence from the style guide." I don't read it that way. I see that it ends up being case-by-case, which does limit it from the alternative of putting it in anytime and any place. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, the community consensus does not support a project wide restriction to a See Also link. A link is an option that may be considered at the article level but it is inappropriate for our project style guide to construe it as a hard limit. –dlthewave ☎ 22:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: You've raised this concern on another page as well. The closing statement of the RfC states that inclusion is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and the overarching statement "Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section" is at odds with this. This is my interpretation. Please discuss your specific objections to my rewrite of the project recommendation here or bring it up with the closing admin.
Do you have a specific objection to my changes that you'd like to discuss? –dlthewave ☎ 22:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't specifically object but again, when edits may be contentious it's best to run it by people first. Springee (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree, but some case are handled by WP:BRD quite well, especially when there's a recent RfC in place. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Crime articles possibly not reliable ???

Hello colleagues, I tried to do some work which resulted out of the RFC to interconnect AR-15 with the Port Arthur massacre. I have asked for help at multiple [12] + [13] + [14] + [15] corners of this project. Now the thing is somehow stuck, leaving me with the question if this crime-related articles are OK regarding WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. Please read Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Discussion and let us read your opinions. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms/Archive_11&oldid=1055406914"