This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "convert list to prose; WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
strike you as too much as WP:CATALOG? If reader's want to do model comparisons, that's what the automaker's websites are for...? Do you also feel that such large sections of articles should be removed based on a single editor's opinion? And your comment about "What the readers want"... isn't what we're here for? I could swear I saw that "it's what the readers want" was an argument for adding the "criminal use" sections to firearms articles, but if they want any info about the article subject itself, or it's legitimate use, they must go elsewhere? Anyway, please don't take anything personal from this, I'm just curious about some of the edits you've been making and the reasoning for them. Thanks - theWOLFchild 06:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's some of the content that was indeed cited to 3rd party sources (rather than being cited to the company itself or uncited):
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The sources include:
Here's the diff in question, if there's anything I missed, please let me know. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
At Glock § Development, it says the overpressure test is 5000 bar, but the source and NATO EPVAT testing § Proofing both say 25% overpressure, which is 3150 bar. Where did 5000 come from? (It was added 9 years ago by blocked user Koalorka) —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 12:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Do local police departments in the U.S. belong in the users section, especially when lacking citations? If I remember correctly, something like 60% of police departments use glocks. It just seems to me that clutters up the page with a lot of not particularly notable information. Anyone have thoughts on this, or ideas how to deal with it? - Mr.1032 ( talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
For the Glock 19X, Glock 43X, and Glock 48. 173.171.238.16 ( talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It occurred to me as I hit submit that my edit summary may be misconstrued as meaning "says who". I added a tag so that someone could say who
these experts were. I am not challenging that experts said it. Refer
WP:WEASEL for why phrases such as "scholars say" are generally inappropriate, and particularly inappropriate in controversial circumstances.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
07:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged the section just added to the article as undue. I don't believe those advocating inclusion have shown sufficient weight for inclusion based on the discussions above. Springee ( talk) 18:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"WEIGHT would apply if we have reliable sources about Glock the company that include lists of crimes associated with Glock the company", keeping in mind that this article is about Glock pistols and not just Glock the company. Could you elaborate on your objections? – dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"The content is factual but given it's part of an article that suggests the need for more gun control it's hardly neutral."and
"...offers no significant insight or understanding"do not seem to be based on existing policy or thorough evaluation of the sources. – dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.", when no reason has been previously stated and none was given upon request, do not contribute to consensus. Regarding your forum shopping accusation, the new content is an attempt to address concerns raised in previous discussions such as
"If a number of news/RS talk about Glocks and their use in crimes I think that makes sense."There seems to have been a shift in the location of the goalposts. dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted recent edits that appear to be an ip sock of HughD. The book ref didn't contain page numbers so it was impossible to verify content. The other source is actually the best one so far and provides some content we could work with though not as a coatrack for a list. Instead it suggests that Glock ushered in a wave of pistols with the ability to fire more rapidly due to the inclusion of reliable, higher capacity magazines etc. That, more so than a list of any particular crime committed with a Glock handgun would be encyclopedic because it would show how the gun changed the nature of some types of crime. Springee ( talk) 05:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the 9mm Glock 47 is out, but I don't know how to describe it for an entry to the page. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.247.227 ( talk) 03:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A number of recent edits [1] added entries to the Users table which had previously been removed due to Indiscriminate List concerns. Many of these entries are supported by sources that are mainly about police agencies, not about Glock guns. The "Reciprocity of weight" argument has been used to trim other sections of this article which were supported by sources that were not about Glocks, so I would ask that editors apply the same standard to all sections. I'm concerned that these indiscriminate additions to the Users section is affecting the balance of the article. – dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect KB!. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The list of crimes was deleted last November. A discussion with respect to the list was had here [ [2]]. Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. The concern and consensus was this had become an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general. It is not clear that external RSs about the Glock company commonly include long lists of crimes. This isn't to say that a crime section can't be supported via RSs but we should base our inclusion and the associations of any particular crime with external sources about Glock that make that association. Springee ( talk) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The brief discussion at WP:FIREARMS is not compelling; it consists mainly of non-policy-based arguments such as the deprecated requirement that criminal use lead to changes in law and unfounded accusations of "anti-gun editors pushing a political agenda". I'm curious why a list of crimes is described as "out of control" and needs to be "limited", when the same concerns do not seem to other sections of the article. Do external sources about Glock list all of the government agencies that use Glock pistols? Springee, this seems to be part of your "reciprocity of weight" idea (interpreting WP:WEIGHT to require coverage in sources that are about the topic), but you are only applying it to the Criminal Use section. How should we handle the rest of the article? As an experiment, can we try removing all sources that aren't about Glocks? – dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users". You are insisting that we discuss Criminal Use on an article-by-article basis, but on the other hand you use the existence of User sections at other articles to justify inclusion here. It looks like special pleading to me. – dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Glock is one of the most common pistols in the world. It is useless intricate WP:TRIVIA detail to include a list of crimes it was used in. -- Pudeo ( talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
OPPOSE the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.-- RAF910 ( talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There are sources that discuss Glock and mass shooting. For example:
Perhaps this section is better rendered in paragraph form, with high-profile incidents integrated into the prose. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms"This is neutral, factual content. Please WP:AGF.
"Absent demonstrated changes to law or policy as a result of a crime, the use of a Glock is trivia."What policy or guideline is this based on? – dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Trekphiler, your comment, "is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms" is so far out of bounds that it falls foul of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control, Principles #2 and #6. Whether this particular article falls under the gun control scope is not clear, but the principles outlined there extend to all articles, of course. I urge you to be less defensive and more neutral--and to avoid silly arguments like "I don't see that for the Chevy Impala". I mean, that's really silly. Drmies ( talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"...easy to conceal, powerful and hold more ammunition";
"With its large ammunition capacity, quick reloading, light trigger pull, and utter reliability, the Glock was hugely innovative";
"light, durable, and capable of holding more than the eight rounds the Walther accommodated". I would support a paragraph in the History section that touches on all of these points, or a new "Cultural impact" section or something similar. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This entire section reeks of violating NPOV. As stated above by others, I object to the section on criminal uses. First, as others have noted, the Glock is one of the more popular handguns in the world, hence even in a case of random gun owners being involved in crimes, the Glock will be overrepresented. No one has suggested, and indeed no one could credibly claim, that any unique characteristics of a Glock somehow contributes to crime. Indeed, the Glock is NOT the most common handgun in the United States and hence is not the one most commonly used in crimes. The most prevalent caliber used in US crimes is guns in 22 LR which Glock does not make. This Glock-phobia is motivated by it being one of the first polymer framed weapons, and opportunistic politicians seeking gun control demonized the Glock (falsely) as being able to evade metal detectors. Today, the Glock is one of dozens of popular polymer framed pistols, and none of those entries have a "use in crime" section. While it may be appropriate to include in an entry about a famous crime a list of guns used (including Glock), that does not imply that it is appropriate to have a section in the Glock entry discussing or pointing to that crime. Another infirmity is that these entries could become inundated with anecdotes about individual crimes rather than informative about this gun. Limiting the number of crimes to an arbitrary number does not address this concern. Whether it is one incident or 10,000, this is all irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry about the gun. Readers come here for info about the gun, not how it was misused. By analogue, no one goes to the Dodge Charger page expecting (or needing) to see that a white supremacist ran over some protestors in Charlottesville using a Dodge Charger. An entry on the Charlottesville murder could arguably (although trivially) mention the brand and model of car. But this does not imply that the murder is important to the discussion of the car. Simply put, this section is being added to SELECT guns in Wikipedia entries to support gun banning propaganda. This is inherently not NPOV. Both a person supporting gun rights and a person opposing gun rights might visit this page, for example, to determine what the magazine capacity of a Glock is. However, someone who supports gun rights or someone who is seeking generic information about the gun is at all interested in how particular criminals have misused this gun. Rmmiller44 ( talk) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
I support including (properly sourced) statements to the effect that many police departments use Glocks - that's relevant and important information. The use of Glocks in mass shootings (again, properly sourced) is even more so. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is
trivia and what would be the start of a section of cruft. Youtube is not a reliable source and that generic entry to the article is lame to begin with.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
10:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Going to the Glock web site this model appears under "Compact" not "Subcompact". Comparing dimensions this appears to be so. More properly this is a "slimline" version of the Glock 19.
https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g48-us https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g19-gen5-fs-us https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmonti ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
From my time playing FPS games, I would have thought the '"fifth generation" Glock 17' was in fact a Five-SeveN. If I'm wrong CS is completely inaccurate Ooh Saad ( talk) 08:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This Glock article one of the better articles I’ve read recently and don’t want to do the organization and content flow a disservice by attempting to insert a section for the new Retro Glock P80. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2020/9/1/new-for-2020-lipseys-glock-pistole-p80/ TurboManiacal ( talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty common for the polymer sights that come on Glocks to break - however, I couldn't find good non forum sources for this, so didn't want to include it even though it definitely is worthy of mentioning. Can anyone find a good source to cite for this section?
Link to a forum post discussing: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/anyone-ever-break-the-plastic-sights.1273126/
WindowstheOS ( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.snipercountry.com/glock-19-gen-4-problems/ This is an article that mentions it in reference to the gen 4 glocks, though the polymer sights have remained the same at least across gen 3-5 as far as I can tell. I'm going to do some more digging to see what other sources would be good and citable for it. WindowstheOS ( talk) 15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
We have a little on this safety lock but it seems to be relatively obscure nowadays. I added some basic citations on the paragraph that already exists on it but it would be grand if someone who understands these things could say more. SP00KY talk 03:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Despite its mention here, I find no definition of follower in the COD, Wikipedia, or Wiktionary. I gather from the context that it's the part of the magazine on which the spring that pushes the bullets upwards rests. Is this correct?
Perhaps this can be fixed?
Paul Magnussen ( talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, your presumption about the follower is correct. WindowstheOS ( talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps that definition should be added as it’s certainly not a well known term. RJS001 ( talk) 02:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Putting this up in the talk section first because I know it'll be controversial to make edits to that section. I would like to edit it to make sure that the content put there adheres to WP:Firearms guidelines on criminal use since simply being used in a crime is not sufficient. I understand that the requirement that a firearm's use lead to changes in legislation has been deprecated but if the use in a crime(s) significantly increased its notoriety, then that would qualify its inclusion.
When applying those guidelines to the Glock article, I see the increase in notoriety primarily would be in the form of increased recognition and discussion about the article's subject (Glock firearms). So, if a criminal used an M&P-15 rifle in a mass shooting which caused notoriety and/or discussion in the public about the firearm used and an editor wanted to include that discussion on the M&P-15 page, said discussion would have to be related to the M&P-15 specifically. If people decry the use of "black rifles" or AR-style rifles and it's in reliable sources, that's a valid point to make....on the AR-15 style rifle page, not on the M&P-15 page.
Of the 4 sources mentioned, 3 directly address the mainspace article's subject, Glock. The Post and Courier article mentions it briefly in passing. The incidents listed as involving glocks should be paired down to those which resulted in discussion/notoriety about Glock itself. A crime may have occurred in which a Glock may have been used but if the subsequent discussion isn't about Glock itself, the incident shouldn't be included. If the discussion isn't about Glock itself but more generally about gun control, then it can be discussed and cited on the gun control article or even "firearm" page.
With that in mind, the section on criminality should include Virginia Tech 2007, 2012 Tucson, 2012 Aurora, 2012 Sandy Hook, 2013 Hialeah shooting (added), 2015 Charleston, 2016 Orlando night club, and 2022 NYC subway since they are the incidents discussed by the Washington Post, Vice, and Reuters articles. The 2011 Norway and 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue attacks would be removed. The Post and Courier source would also be removed since it only mentions Glock in passing.
I personally think the reasons given for the notoriety and discussion about it are pretty stupid because they're like saying "I like using Black and Deckers when I kneecap people because they're reliable and don't break down on you" but I'm not the "expert" being interviewed. That being said, if reliable sources are saying it, then it can be discussed on Glock's page. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
It seems somewhat strange to me that the article title for the handgun was simply 'Glock'. As I understand 'Glock' is common term for the handgun, but it just seems insufficient. I even searched 'Glock' myself, thinking I'd get the article to the company. I've even seen people in firearms communities naturally speak with this discern in any conversation without thought. AirNinja ( talk) 03:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
First is "Glock" is registered trademark , a "Brand Name" that is starting to become "Generic Word" (common place word) used to describe similar firearms. That is not "The Glock" but Glock, and anyway people tend to drop the "THE" off of names as pretentious and often not necessary. So You're the sole Owner of Glock and becoming a household names sounds good right? You're so popular your product becomes the word to describe____, except that is actually bad for the company. A company can lose its trademarked name if they don't defend any infringement of use of it rigorously , if not the trademark name loses its legal standing and protection. This loss of Trademark can also happen if the term falls into common vocabulary despite the owners' best efforts to protect it. Just like Xerox once only meant certain copy machine company(any other use was trademark infringement by anyone else), but now means to copy something. The IBM P.C.(Personal Computer) became known as PCs and PC Compatible Computers became known as just PCs and IBM lost their trademark. The Crescent Wrench an Adjustable Wrench/Spanner made by one company which became known as a generic term for that style of wrench. Even Coke is used to refer to any soda beverage in some parts of the world. This Trademark becoming so successful it falls into common usage and the company behind it can loose control of their the name and branding. So that the name/word takes on a meaning of its own. When this occurs how the word use may not follow typical rules of grammar. Polymer made firearms can be incorrectly referred to as "Tupperware" Guns or Glocks see Glock#Clones. Some Musicians use words and names out of context, people not knowing the context then misuse it more, leading to worse confusion.
Up until circa the fall-winter of 2022 Glock had only made pistols/ handguns / Machine pistols for firearms. Although the Glock 17 was their 17th product, is was Glock's 1st firearm and a handgun, hence the product name "Glock 17". Glock 18 was Glock 17 with the option to go semi to full auto with rotation of the switch and had the 31/33 mag when the 17 only had 17 rounds, The Glock 19 also in 9x19mm but in more compact frame flush fit was 15 in the mag, but could use the Glock 17's larger magazine or Glock 18's Magazine. Then names goloco stupid for logic. Glock have stuck with that naming convention of next number despite the stupidity and headaches it causes as various models do not use calibers similar to their name. As is common in most other firearm names with numbers having relation to their caliber and/or the year it entered production. Example: The " Glock 45" does not and will not shoot .45_ACP pistol ammo. Nor does it even use Glock's own specific to solely their company designed caliber .45_GAP (45 Glock Auto Pistol) caliber, which the latter is only used in 3 guns, the Glock Model 37s, Glock Model 38s and Model 39s only. Model 38 does not and can not use any caliber associate with 38, not the super common been around forever .38_Special caliber , nor almost as old the .380_ACP which is in different un related Model numbers of the 25, 28, and Model 42 . Same issue on other Glock Model numbers, making which caliber to which model number a less logical system. See Glock#Variants for many examples. Confused? Welcome to the world of Glock's Nomenclature. This gets as confusing as the old comedy sketch Who's on First, this would be comical, except it endangers misinformed people from them trying to use the wrong caliber in the wrong firearm. Which in the best of bad case scenario, the cartridges does not fit, and the gun can not function or fire. In worst case the cartridge chambers and fires but the bullet could be to big for the barrel and the gun explodes in what referred to as a "KABOOM!" Wanna smack Glock's staff across the head yet?
Why did I cite this time period for a "circa. date", that is because the news and sources about a "Glock" (as the manufacture) Rifle may be coming to production . Right now is more in the rumor mill stages and alleged leaks at this point. Little to limited , subject to change, information is factually known and officially confirmed. It is claimed to be only for Military and Law Enforcement markets but this occurred with other products also, that were made available and sold to civilian markets. As the months move forward from September 2022, to October 2022 and onward through November 2022 more information is coming from official channels that would be by Wikipedia terms to be "cite worthy", even if they are just rehashing Glock's own press release on this new Rifle/Carbine/PCC/ PDW model most likely chambered in a pistol caliber.
To complicate this why "Glock", there are multiple firearms by many different companies, that those companies chose to use the "Glock Magazine" designs for their firearm, instead of inventing a new different proprietary magazine. Which customers tend to become weary of having to purchase multiple magazines of yet different design, especially if unproven and no other firearms share it's design. That buy in to yet another magazine system and equipment, is an investment and commitment that on a new design you may get lucky and it becomes common in many models, or it can be limited to just that one with only that one gun, and that company for extra magazines and parts for a certain time, then they stop production for their next best thing. So as time goes on magazines become more expensive, as you can only buy replacement and spares from someone that will let one go of one of their's, and that is a reseller's market for pricing. Especially when the company quits manufacturing that model and releases their next new model, that isn't compatible.
The advantages to use a market standard magazine are a very reliable and proven magazine design, that already has good reputation. Add to that many firearm owners own at least one Glock (with multiple magazines for it, 2-3 is normal for basic retail option new in the box) in their collection. Then add the interchangeability of magazines between firearms , most calibers of Glock gun magazines will work in another Glock Model of the same caliber and Magazine_(firearms) type, must be the same for the single stack or double stack magazine design. These companies are not having to yet again ""re-invent the wheel""(magazine) with a reliable feeding, durability, and functionality with multitude of various ammo types and various bullets and powder loads are just few reasons to go with an already off the shelf magazine in the market place. As the Glock Magazines are reliable, popular(due to market share for handguns) that helps other companies making a new Rifle, Carbine , PCC or handgun in various other platforms. That doesn't even include the whole AR-##(9mmm, 45cal, ect) have chosen to used Glock magazines, as the feed device method, due to both number of magazines owned by the public, and the number of after market vendors making them. IE: Magpul, ETS, Promag, etc. The original AR-9(mm, note not the ArmaLite Model 9) used the Uzi magazine design with different magazine catch hole made by COLT. So you'll get people saying they have "Glock AR" when in fact they have an AR pattern Modern Sporting Rifle chambered in a pistol caliber that uses a Glock Model Magazines as the ammunition Feed Device, which may or may not be made by Glock. A "Glock" Magazine is starting to refer to design and not the trademark "Glock" manufactured "factory" Magazine. You probably didn't realize how much the after market accessories and parts plays into this, if no one makes anything that isn't good for your company's firearms, yet if everyone makes stuff because you're that popular, that also becomes bad.
I'll leave someone else to explain certain culture groups use of the term "Glock" and/or " Glock 40" to refer to all handguns without regard to their correct caliber and/or model number. By the way guess what caliber a "Glock 40" shoots , hint it's not the .40cal .... As you can find many stories and gripes on gun forums from gun store staff about this demographic coming in saying that they have a Glock and not knowing the Model number, nor the caliber.... Some believing they have caliber that is not the one clearly engraved on the frame and slide... Leading to many issues with them buying the wrong size/style/specification of magazine for their handgun. To make these even more frustrating for the gun stores, it may be even entirely different firearm manufacture that does not even use Glock Brand(Design)magazines, as they are just one standard or magazine design in the industry. You'll see Magazine reuse in other firearms, some of the more common are like how the M-4/M-16/AR-15 magazine is used in other firearms, the AK-47 family of weapons use shared magazines, and/or how the Spanish C.E.T.M.E.'s Model B's & C's Magazine design is used later in the H&K G3 H&K 41 H&K 91 models and again in various PTR_riflePTR models of firearms.
With that said, "why "Glock and not "The Glock" is because "Glock" is the companies formal Trade Marked name. Referring to other
handguns,
Machine pistols,
revolvers and
pistols calling them all Glock is like calling everything with an edge a knife. This is just like there is difference between a
Clip and
magazine and if you need more help
Glossary of firearms terms would help guide you. You may use a clip to load magazine but if you ask for a clip you may not get s magazine, because Stripper clips have been in use to load firearms, shortly after they started being able to hold more than one cartridge. Just to make confusing, you can put you Gun's magazine in the Magazine. It is not being Pedantic to use the right terms so you get the right item and parts. If you ask for
Bullets (you could get any of these options also
other Bullets ) you may just get box of projectiles without the
cartridge case, that won't have the primer, nor any gun powder in it, nor will all that be assembled. Maybe you actually wanted just the Bullets to
load your own ammunition, maybe you wanted to buy complete ammunition that was ready to fire out of the box. If your shopping for Glock and aren't sure, if you're looking at the real thing look for "factory" or "OEM" as key word clues. Hope that helps you, although with model numbers to their correct calibers memorization and familiarization is about the only thing you can do, or stick to the models and calibers you're interested in. That way you'll have less to keep straight.
2600:1702:1590:9A30:0:0:0:48 (
talk)
06:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Describe why you think it is a "Waste of space." It seemed more of a personal preference revert than a logical one. Gun Nut perk ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
So basicly for the ones who don't know there is this one 7th grader who went to his school with a glock,and at recess time he brought it and showed it to his friends then they played tag with GUNS.when the 7th grader with the gun was hiding and other were catching him but then,He Accidently Shot His Friend In The Head.And the the police arrested the kid,but the kid is INNOCENT,first of all,he dosent know anything about using a gun and he managed to forget removing the magazine from it.secondly,he stole the glock from his father's desktop cabinet and the father was arrested too for 'gun violation.Sooo I don't know if this topic is acctualy interistjng or it makes your day worser ;-;~ 2001:8F8:1E37:5F0F:60C7:D94:1D7F:5BC1 ( talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "convert list to prose; WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
strike you as too much as WP:CATALOG? If reader's want to do model comparisons, that's what the automaker's websites are for...? Do you also feel that such large sections of articles should be removed based on a single editor's opinion? And your comment about "What the readers want"... isn't what we're here for? I could swear I saw that "it's what the readers want" was an argument for adding the "criminal use" sections to firearms articles, but if they want any info about the article subject itself, or it's legitimate use, they must go elsewhere? Anyway, please don't take anything personal from this, I'm just curious about some of the edits you've been making and the reasoning for them. Thanks - theWOLFchild 06:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's some of the content that was indeed cited to 3rd party sources (rather than being cited to the company itself or uncited):
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The sources include:
Here's the diff in question, if there's anything I missed, please let me know. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
At Glock § Development, it says the overpressure test is 5000 bar, but the source and NATO EPVAT testing § Proofing both say 25% overpressure, which is 3150 bar. Where did 5000 come from? (It was added 9 years ago by blocked user Koalorka) —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 12:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Do local police departments in the U.S. belong in the users section, especially when lacking citations? If I remember correctly, something like 60% of police departments use glocks. It just seems to me that clutters up the page with a lot of not particularly notable information. Anyone have thoughts on this, or ideas how to deal with it? - Mr.1032 ( talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
For the Glock 19X, Glock 43X, and Glock 48. 173.171.238.16 ( talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It occurred to me as I hit submit that my edit summary may be misconstrued as meaning "says who". I added a tag so that someone could say who
these experts were. I am not challenging that experts said it. Refer
WP:WEASEL for why phrases such as "scholars say" are generally inappropriate, and particularly inappropriate in controversial circumstances.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
07:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged the section just added to the article as undue. I don't believe those advocating inclusion have shown sufficient weight for inclusion based on the discussions above. Springee ( talk) 18:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"WEIGHT would apply if we have reliable sources about Glock the company that include lists of crimes associated with Glock the company", keeping in mind that this article is about Glock pistols and not just Glock the company. Could you elaborate on your objections? – dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"The content is factual but given it's part of an article that suggests the need for more gun control it's hardly neutral."and
"...offers no significant insight or understanding"do not seem to be based on existing policy or thorough evaluation of the sources. – dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.", when no reason has been previously stated and none was given upon request, do not contribute to consensus. Regarding your forum shopping accusation, the new content is an attempt to address concerns raised in previous discussions such as
"If a number of news/RS talk about Glocks and their use in crimes I think that makes sense."There seems to have been a shift in the location of the goalposts. dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted recent edits that appear to be an ip sock of HughD. The book ref didn't contain page numbers so it was impossible to verify content. The other source is actually the best one so far and provides some content we could work with though not as a coatrack for a list. Instead it suggests that Glock ushered in a wave of pistols with the ability to fire more rapidly due to the inclusion of reliable, higher capacity magazines etc. That, more so than a list of any particular crime committed with a Glock handgun would be encyclopedic because it would show how the gun changed the nature of some types of crime. Springee ( talk) 05:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the 9mm Glock 47 is out, but I don't know how to describe it for an entry to the page. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.247.227 ( talk) 03:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A number of recent edits [1] added entries to the Users table which had previously been removed due to Indiscriminate List concerns. Many of these entries are supported by sources that are mainly about police agencies, not about Glock guns. The "Reciprocity of weight" argument has been used to trim other sections of this article which were supported by sources that were not about Glocks, so I would ask that editors apply the same standard to all sections. I'm concerned that these indiscriminate additions to the Users section is affecting the balance of the article. – dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect KB!. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The list of crimes was deleted last November. A discussion with respect to the list was had here [ [2]]. Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. The concern and consensus was this had become an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general. It is not clear that external RSs about the Glock company commonly include long lists of crimes. This isn't to say that a crime section can't be supported via RSs but we should base our inclusion and the associations of any particular crime with external sources about Glock that make that association. Springee ( talk) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The brief discussion at WP:FIREARMS is not compelling; it consists mainly of non-policy-based arguments such as the deprecated requirement that criminal use lead to changes in law and unfounded accusations of "anti-gun editors pushing a political agenda". I'm curious why a list of crimes is described as "out of control" and needs to be "limited", when the same concerns do not seem to other sections of the article. Do external sources about Glock list all of the government agencies that use Glock pistols? Springee, this seems to be part of your "reciprocity of weight" idea (interpreting WP:WEIGHT to require coverage in sources that are about the topic), but you are only applying it to the Criminal Use section. How should we handle the rest of the article? As an experiment, can we try removing all sources that aren't about Glocks? – dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users". You are insisting that we discuss Criminal Use on an article-by-article basis, but on the other hand you use the existence of User sections at other articles to justify inclusion here. It looks like special pleading to me. – dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Glock is one of the most common pistols in the world. It is useless intricate WP:TRIVIA detail to include a list of crimes it was used in. -- Pudeo ( talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
OPPOSE the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.-- RAF910 ( talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There are sources that discuss Glock and mass shooting. For example:
Perhaps this section is better rendered in paragraph form, with high-profile incidents integrated into the prose. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms"This is neutral, factual content. Please WP:AGF.
"Absent demonstrated changes to law or policy as a result of a crime, the use of a Glock is trivia."What policy or guideline is this based on? – dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Trekphiler, your comment, "is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms" is so far out of bounds that it falls foul of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control, Principles #2 and #6. Whether this particular article falls under the gun control scope is not clear, but the principles outlined there extend to all articles, of course. I urge you to be less defensive and more neutral--and to avoid silly arguments like "I don't see that for the Chevy Impala". I mean, that's really silly. Drmies ( talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"...easy to conceal, powerful and hold more ammunition";
"With its large ammunition capacity, quick reloading, light trigger pull, and utter reliability, the Glock was hugely innovative";
"light, durable, and capable of holding more than the eight rounds the Walther accommodated". I would support a paragraph in the History section that touches on all of these points, or a new "Cultural impact" section or something similar. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This entire section reeks of violating NPOV. As stated above by others, I object to the section on criminal uses. First, as others have noted, the Glock is one of the more popular handguns in the world, hence even in a case of random gun owners being involved in crimes, the Glock will be overrepresented. No one has suggested, and indeed no one could credibly claim, that any unique characteristics of a Glock somehow contributes to crime. Indeed, the Glock is NOT the most common handgun in the United States and hence is not the one most commonly used in crimes. The most prevalent caliber used in US crimes is guns in 22 LR which Glock does not make. This Glock-phobia is motivated by it being one of the first polymer framed weapons, and opportunistic politicians seeking gun control demonized the Glock (falsely) as being able to evade metal detectors. Today, the Glock is one of dozens of popular polymer framed pistols, and none of those entries have a "use in crime" section. While it may be appropriate to include in an entry about a famous crime a list of guns used (including Glock), that does not imply that it is appropriate to have a section in the Glock entry discussing or pointing to that crime. Another infirmity is that these entries could become inundated with anecdotes about individual crimes rather than informative about this gun. Limiting the number of crimes to an arbitrary number does not address this concern. Whether it is one incident or 10,000, this is all irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry about the gun. Readers come here for info about the gun, not how it was misused. By analogue, no one goes to the Dodge Charger page expecting (or needing) to see that a white supremacist ran over some protestors in Charlottesville using a Dodge Charger. An entry on the Charlottesville murder could arguably (although trivially) mention the brand and model of car. But this does not imply that the murder is important to the discussion of the car. Simply put, this section is being added to SELECT guns in Wikipedia entries to support gun banning propaganda. This is inherently not NPOV. Both a person supporting gun rights and a person opposing gun rights might visit this page, for example, to determine what the magazine capacity of a Glock is. However, someone who supports gun rights or someone who is seeking generic information about the gun is at all interested in how particular criminals have misused this gun. Rmmiller44 ( talk) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)rmmiller44
I support including (properly sourced) statements to the effect that many police departments use Glocks - that's relevant and important information. The use of Glocks in mass shootings (again, properly sourced) is even more so. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is
trivia and what would be the start of a section of cruft. Youtube is not a reliable source and that generic entry to the article is lame to begin with.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
10:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Going to the Glock web site this model appears under "Compact" not "Subcompact". Comparing dimensions this appears to be so. More properly this is a "slimline" version of the Glock 19.
https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g48-us https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g19-gen5-fs-us https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmonti ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
From my time playing FPS games, I would have thought the '"fifth generation" Glock 17' was in fact a Five-SeveN. If I'm wrong CS is completely inaccurate Ooh Saad ( talk) 08:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This Glock article one of the better articles I’ve read recently and don’t want to do the organization and content flow a disservice by attempting to insert a section for the new Retro Glock P80. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2020/9/1/new-for-2020-lipseys-glock-pistole-p80/ TurboManiacal ( talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty common for the polymer sights that come on Glocks to break - however, I couldn't find good non forum sources for this, so didn't want to include it even though it definitely is worthy of mentioning. Can anyone find a good source to cite for this section?
Link to a forum post discussing: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/anyone-ever-break-the-plastic-sights.1273126/
WindowstheOS ( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.snipercountry.com/glock-19-gen-4-problems/ This is an article that mentions it in reference to the gen 4 glocks, though the polymer sights have remained the same at least across gen 3-5 as far as I can tell. I'm going to do some more digging to see what other sources would be good and citable for it. WindowstheOS ( talk) 15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
We have a little on this safety lock but it seems to be relatively obscure nowadays. I added some basic citations on the paragraph that already exists on it but it would be grand if someone who understands these things could say more. SP00KY talk 03:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Despite its mention here, I find no definition of follower in the COD, Wikipedia, or Wiktionary. I gather from the context that it's the part of the magazine on which the spring that pushes the bullets upwards rests. Is this correct?
Perhaps this can be fixed?
Paul Magnussen ( talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, your presumption about the follower is correct. WindowstheOS ( talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps that definition should be added as it’s certainly not a well known term. RJS001 ( talk) 02:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Putting this up in the talk section first because I know it'll be controversial to make edits to that section. I would like to edit it to make sure that the content put there adheres to WP:Firearms guidelines on criminal use since simply being used in a crime is not sufficient. I understand that the requirement that a firearm's use lead to changes in legislation has been deprecated but if the use in a crime(s) significantly increased its notoriety, then that would qualify its inclusion.
When applying those guidelines to the Glock article, I see the increase in notoriety primarily would be in the form of increased recognition and discussion about the article's subject (Glock firearms). So, if a criminal used an M&P-15 rifle in a mass shooting which caused notoriety and/or discussion in the public about the firearm used and an editor wanted to include that discussion on the M&P-15 page, said discussion would have to be related to the M&P-15 specifically. If people decry the use of "black rifles" or AR-style rifles and it's in reliable sources, that's a valid point to make....on the AR-15 style rifle page, not on the M&P-15 page.
Of the 4 sources mentioned, 3 directly address the mainspace article's subject, Glock. The Post and Courier article mentions it briefly in passing. The incidents listed as involving glocks should be paired down to those which resulted in discussion/notoriety about Glock itself. A crime may have occurred in which a Glock may have been used but if the subsequent discussion isn't about Glock itself, the incident shouldn't be included. If the discussion isn't about Glock itself but more generally about gun control, then it can be discussed and cited on the gun control article or even "firearm" page.
With that in mind, the section on criminality should include Virginia Tech 2007, 2012 Tucson, 2012 Aurora, 2012 Sandy Hook, 2013 Hialeah shooting (added), 2015 Charleston, 2016 Orlando night club, and 2022 NYC subway since they are the incidents discussed by the Washington Post, Vice, and Reuters articles. The 2011 Norway and 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue attacks would be removed. The Post and Courier source would also be removed since it only mentions Glock in passing.
I personally think the reasons given for the notoriety and discussion about it are pretty stupid because they're like saying "I like using Black and Deckers when I kneecap people because they're reliable and don't break down on you" but I'm not the "expert" being interviewed. That being said, if reliable sources are saying it, then it can be discussed on Glock's page. Jasonkwe ( talk) ( contribs) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
It seems somewhat strange to me that the article title for the handgun was simply 'Glock'. As I understand 'Glock' is common term for the handgun, but it just seems insufficient. I even searched 'Glock' myself, thinking I'd get the article to the company. I've even seen people in firearms communities naturally speak with this discern in any conversation without thought. AirNinja ( talk) 03:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
First is "Glock" is registered trademark , a "Brand Name" that is starting to become "Generic Word" (common place word) used to describe similar firearms. That is not "The Glock" but Glock, and anyway people tend to drop the "THE" off of names as pretentious and often not necessary. So You're the sole Owner of Glock and becoming a household names sounds good right? You're so popular your product becomes the word to describe____, except that is actually bad for the company. A company can lose its trademarked name if they don't defend any infringement of use of it rigorously , if not the trademark name loses its legal standing and protection. This loss of Trademark can also happen if the term falls into common vocabulary despite the owners' best efforts to protect it. Just like Xerox once only meant certain copy machine company(any other use was trademark infringement by anyone else), but now means to copy something. The IBM P.C.(Personal Computer) became known as PCs and PC Compatible Computers became known as just PCs and IBM lost their trademark. The Crescent Wrench an Adjustable Wrench/Spanner made by one company which became known as a generic term for that style of wrench. Even Coke is used to refer to any soda beverage in some parts of the world. This Trademark becoming so successful it falls into common usage and the company behind it can loose control of their the name and branding. So that the name/word takes on a meaning of its own. When this occurs how the word use may not follow typical rules of grammar. Polymer made firearms can be incorrectly referred to as "Tupperware" Guns or Glocks see Glock#Clones. Some Musicians use words and names out of context, people not knowing the context then misuse it more, leading to worse confusion.
Up until circa the fall-winter of 2022 Glock had only made pistols/ handguns / Machine pistols for firearms. Although the Glock 17 was their 17th product, is was Glock's 1st firearm and a handgun, hence the product name "Glock 17". Glock 18 was Glock 17 with the option to go semi to full auto with rotation of the switch and had the 31/33 mag when the 17 only had 17 rounds, The Glock 19 also in 9x19mm but in more compact frame flush fit was 15 in the mag, but could use the Glock 17's larger magazine or Glock 18's Magazine. Then names goloco stupid for logic. Glock have stuck with that naming convention of next number despite the stupidity and headaches it causes as various models do not use calibers similar to their name. As is common in most other firearm names with numbers having relation to their caliber and/or the year it entered production. Example: The " Glock 45" does not and will not shoot .45_ACP pistol ammo. Nor does it even use Glock's own specific to solely their company designed caliber .45_GAP (45 Glock Auto Pistol) caliber, which the latter is only used in 3 guns, the Glock Model 37s, Glock Model 38s and Model 39s only. Model 38 does not and can not use any caliber associate with 38, not the super common been around forever .38_Special caliber , nor almost as old the .380_ACP which is in different un related Model numbers of the 25, 28, and Model 42 . Same issue on other Glock Model numbers, making which caliber to which model number a less logical system. See Glock#Variants for many examples. Confused? Welcome to the world of Glock's Nomenclature. This gets as confusing as the old comedy sketch Who's on First, this would be comical, except it endangers misinformed people from them trying to use the wrong caliber in the wrong firearm. Which in the best of bad case scenario, the cartridges does not fit, and the gun can not function or fire. In worst case the cartridge chambers and fires but the bullet could be to big for the barrel and the gun explodes in what referred to as a "KABOOM!" Wanna smack Glock's staff across the head yet?
Why did I cite this time period for a "circa. date", that is because the news and sources about a "Glock" (as the manufacture) Rifle may be coming to production . Right now is more in the rumor mill stages and alleged leaks at this point. Little to limited , subject to change, information is factually known and officially confirmed. It is claimed to be only for Military and Law Enforcement markets but this occurred with other products also, that were made available and sold to civilian markets. As the months move forward from September 2022, to October 2022 and onward through November 2022 more information is coming from official channels that would be by Wikipedia terms to be "cite worthy", even if they are just rehashing Glock's own press release on this new Rifle/Carbine/PCC/ PDW model most likely chambered in a pistol caliber.
To complicate this why "Glock", there are multiple firearms by many different companies, that those companies chose to use the "Glock Magazine" designs for their firearm, instead of inventing a new different proprietary magazine. Which customers tend to become weary of having to purchase multiple magazines of yet different design, especially if unproven and no other firearms share it's design. That buy in to yet another magazine system and equipment, is an investment and commitment that on a new design you may get lucky and it becomes common in many models, or it can be limited to just that one with only that one gun, and that company for extra magazines and parts for a certain time, then they stop production for their next best thing. So as time goes on magazines become more expensive, as you can only buy replacement and spares from someone that will let one go of one of their's, and that is a reseller's market for pricing. Especially when the company quits manufacturing that model and releases their next new model, that isn't compatible.
The advantages to use a market standard magazine are a very reliable and proven magazine design, that already has good reputation. Add to that many firearm owners own at least one Glock (with multiple magazines for it, 2-3 is normal for basic retail option new in the box) in their collection. Then add the interchangeability of magazines between firearms , most calibers of Glock gun magazines will work in another Glock Model of the same caliber and Magazine_(firearms) type, must be the same for the single stack or double stack magazine design. These companies are not having to yet again ""re-invent the wheel""(magazine) with a reliable feeding, durability, and functionality with multitude of various ammo types and various bullets and powder loads are just few reasons to go with an already off the shelf magazine in the market place. As the Glock Magazines are reliable, popular(due to market share for handguns) that helps other companies making a new Rifle, Carbine , PCC or handgun in various other platforms. That doesn't even include the whole AR-##(9mmm, 45cal, ect) have chosen to used Glock magazines, as the feed device method, due to both number of magazines owned by the public, and the number of after market vendors making them. IE: Magpul, ETS, Promag, etc. The original AR-9(mm, note not the ArmaLite Model 9) used the Uzi magazine design with different magazine catch hole made by COLT. So you'll get people saying they have "Glock AR" when in fact they have an AR pattern Modern Sporting Rifle chambered in a pistol caliber that uses a Glock Model Magazines as the ammunition Feed Device, which may or may not be made by Glock. A "Glock" Magazine is starting to refer to design and not the trademark "Glock" manufactured "factory" Magazine. You probably didn't realize how much the after market accessories and parts plays into this, if no one makes anything that isn't good for your company's firearms, yet if everyone makes stuff because you're that popular, that also becomes bad.
I'll leave someone else to explain certain culture groups use of the term "Glock" and/or " Glock 40" to refer to all handguns without regard to their correct caliber and/or model number. By the way guess what caliber a "Glock 40" shoots , hint it's not the .40cal .... As you can find many stories and gripes on gun forums from gun store staff about this demographic coming in saying that they have a Glock and not knowing the Model number, nor the caliber.... Some believing they have caliber that is not the one clearly engraved on the frame and slide... Leading to many issues with them buying the wrong size/style/specification of magazine for their handgun. To make these even more frustrating for the gun stores, it may be even entirely different firearm manufacture that does not even use Glock Brand(Design)magazines, as they are just one standard or magazine design in the industry. You'll see Magazine reuse in other firearms, some of the more common are like how the M-4/M-16/AR-15 magazine is used in other firearms, the AK-47 family of weapons use shared magazines, and/or how the Spanish C.E.T.M.E.'s Model B's & C's Magazine design is used later in the H&K G3 H&K 41 H&K 91 models and again in various PTR_riflePTR models of firearms.
With that said, "why "Glock and not "The Glock" is because "Glock" is the companies formal Trade Marked name. Referring to other
handguns,
Machine pistols,
revolvers and
pistols calling them all Glock is like calling everything with an edge a knife. This is just like there is difference between a
Clip and
magazine and if you need more help
Glossary of firearms terms would help guide you. You may use a clip to load magazine but if you ask for a clip you may not get s magazine, because Stripper clips have been in use to load firearms, shortly after they started being able to hold more than one cartridge. Just to make confusing, you can put you Gun's magazine in the Magazine. It is not being Pedantic to use the right terms so you get the right item and parts. If you ask for
Bullets (you could get any of these options also
other Bullets ) you may just get box of projectiles without the
cartridge case, that won't have the primer, nor any gun powder in it, nor will all that be assembled. Maybe you actually wanted just the Bullets to
load your own ammunition, maybe you wanted to buy complete ammunition that was ready to fire out of the box. If your shopping for Glock and aren't sure, if you're looking at the real thing look for "factory" or "OEM" as key word clues. Hope that helps you, although with model numbers to their correct calibers memorization and familiarization is about the only thing you can do, or stick to the models and calibers you're interested in. That way you'll have less to keep straight.
2600:1702:1590:9A30:0:0:0:48 (
talk)
06:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Describe why you think it is a "Waste of space." It seemed more of a personal preference revert than a logical one. Gun Nut perk ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
So basicly for the ones who don't know there is this one 7th grader who went to his school with a glock,and at recess time he brought it and showed it to his friends then they played tag with GUNS.when the 7th grader with the gun was hiding and other were catching him but then,He Accidently Shot His Friend In The Head.And the the police arrested the kid,but the kid is INNOCENT,first of all,he dosent know anything about using a gun and he managed to forget removing the magazine from it.secondly,he stole the glock from his father's desktop cabinet and the father was arrested too for 'gun violation.Sooo I don't know if this topic is acctualy interistjng or it makes your day worser ;-;~ 2001:8F8:1E37:5F0F:60C7:D94:1D7F:5BC1 ( talk) 19:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)