This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Smith & Wesson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Be good if someone opened a discussion (and everyone should watch WP:3RR) but calling other editors socks/trolls/employees of S&W is not going to fly. Article semi-protected. -- NeilN talk to me 14:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Refusing to include ANYTHING about criticism of a manufacturer of a product used to kill people is crazy. Thos page reads like a fanpage for S&W with no balance. Would we exclude all criticism of cigarette manufacturers from Wikipedia? Legacypac ( talk) 16:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Cars are designed for transportation, not killing, so that is an inappropriate comparision" - Actually, just to be clear, the civilian-variant of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people either. While it is based on a military rifle (M-16) that was designed primarily to wound (as described above by 72b) and yes, kill enemy combatants, the semi-auto AR-15 sold on the civilian market is intended for target-shooting, hunting, collecting, etc., not killing people. That said, based on the recent high-profile involvement of ARs in mass-shootings, including, I believe, ARs made by S&W, the inclusion of a brief, well-sourced and properly written, neutral comment about these incidents and the public's reaction, would not be out of line here. (jmho) tVVc 04:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] Legacypac ( talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I removed a sentence from the lede which states that the arms are a standard for police and armed forces. The lede is a summary of the contents of the body and I couldn’t find a part in the body to which this summary pertains. I therefore removed it as uncited, pending either a citation or the addition of a section in the body which warrants its mention uncited in the lede. Edaham ( talk) 02:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
While the article’s history section focuses on historical usage. The lede was suggesting that the usage of these devices as standard is current. I did actually find lots of info on current usage via a search so it probably is sourcable. Edaham ( talk) 03:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
At least in its current form. According to American Outdoor Brands [3] S&W is just an operating division of the company. Since we have two pages and the one at the correct name is very short we should be merging them. Legacypac ( talk) 04:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@JzG, if you are going to tag the article I think you should say what is wrong on the talk page. Else how can other editors know what you feel needs to be corrected. Springee ( talk) 11:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The Smith and Wesson page should be moved over the American Outdoor Brands Corporation title. The merger info at American Outdoor Brands Corporation should be merged in to thr longer article. The minor other businesses under AOBC should be covered in short sections, with the S&W section being the main section. I'd suggest something like "AOBC's primary brand is S&W and the company was called S&W until 2017." Legacypac ( talk) 17:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
JzG - First off, do you think both of these tags are necessary? Seems a little redundant, wouldn't one suffice? Second, can you point out just what part(s) of this article supports the addition of these tags? - theWOLFchild 04:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@ JzG:, sorry my previous ping didn't work. Anyway, can you describe the issues? Currently we would have no way to know if your concerns have been addressed. Springee ( talk) 11:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The merger is one issue. The fan/peacock problem is another issue. To solve the fan/peacock issues we need to trim out material that is promotional without imparting useful information. Anything that is best hosted on the company's own website should be removed. In the other direction the page should cover important criticism from NRA et al, anti-gun interests, and investor side commentary. The page needs to move from "what the company would write about itself" to reflect "what othere write about the company". If this came through AfC as is it would be rejected as NPOV, although I would accept it as notable and tag it for cleanup. Legacypac ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think the tags belong. Lots of the article is stuff which would only matter to a corporation and their potential clients, is primary sourced and dubiously notable." - Oh FFS... like what?? You and couple others saying there's "stuff" in no way supports those tags or a need for any kind of change to the page. People with concerns about this content need to start supplying actual examples, or the tags will be removed.
...I think the idea of a civilian owning a gun is completely moronic..." - I'm hoping that when you wrote that, you hadn't considered that numerous contributors here are also firearms enthusiasts; civilians who own firearms for hunting, target shooting, competitions, collecting, or any legal reason they damn well please, with no intention of "blowing anyone's head off", and you just insulted every one of them. Is a farmer that owns a varmint rifle for pest control a "moron"? Is the logger who works deep in wooded areas and owns pack rifle for protection a "moron"? Are all the Native and Inuit peoples of North America that have firearms to hunt and feed their families "morons"? If a long-time contributer who has spent countless hours working to help build and maintain this project, were to tell you here that they own a firearm for target shooting as a hobby, would you call them a "moron" (figuratively) to their face? I think you should strike that remark and rethink the wording of your personal "thoughts" before you post them. And lastly, don't come here preaching to others about using this page as a forum, then start spouting off with your opinions on things that aren't even the article's subject. - theWOLFchild 06:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac, actually, I was asking another editor to not "personalize this" by posting blatantly insulting comments, and also asking that we stay on topic, instead posting off-topic opinions. All of my previous posts above conform to the AE/DS. Now, which editors are "trying to explain basic wiki policy" here and who is it that keeps saying "I don't understand"...?
@Edaham, was I unclear about something? Despite multiple editors asking repeatedly, not one of the users here complaining about the neutrality of this article has yet cited a single example. You say you support the tags, I ask you for an example and you reply with "wow, erm ok". Aside from that, I don't see the "humor" in calling gun owners and fellow editors "moronic", or claiming they will "blow people's head's off, or the purpose of such personal commentary just after admonishing everyone about treating this page like forum. But, you say your were comments were only in jest, so I will agf and accept your word on that and drop the matter. I would actually like to steer back on topic, and that is, for this section at least, the reasons for these tags on the article. Can you, or Lp, point out any particular examples that make this page appear to be a "fansite" with "peacock" language? If so, that would be appreciated. Thanks - theWOLFchild 07:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Several editors have been very specific about how the page needs to be edited. Continuing to badger us is another thing you were warned not to do. You might look at the deletions and additions I and other editors you can't understand have been making for specific examples. Legacypac ( talk) 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And calling gun ownership (&, by extension, owners)I'm not the one who "extended" anything. Perhaps gun owners are more into extending things. In any case, by way of apology, I've created a small purple input box on the top left of my user page where people who were offended can leave comments. Have fun looking for it. It's very small. You might need a scope. Anyway laughs aside, Here's some of the stuff I found.
You said you supported the tags. I asked for a reason. Any reason. That's "nitpicking"...?
But, you're right about me being mean to you, and I should apologize for that. I shouldn't have called you "moronic".
Oh, wait...
-
theWOLFchild
11:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that those comment were highly inappropriate and instead of apologizing he just went on to make more inappropriate comments. Those comments could be construed as a personal attack. They would also speak to a editor not having neutrality and probably should not be editing here. Please keep the conversation on topic. - 72bikers ( talk) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: I suggest you remove this incendiary comment: [5]. It's one thing to call an idea "moronic" and quite another to make a leap as you've done here.
In general, there's no need to respond to each and every comment, and in a combative and belittling tone. If you have concerns about a particular editor, please take it to their Talk page or to an appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No answer for a week, so the edit break is over and let's get back on topic; @ JzG: - I see you've removed the tags, then added another, but still haven't added anything substantive to the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup;
Avoid "drive-by" tagging.
Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below. Tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion.
Per your last
edit summary where you swapped tags, you stated; "it's just that the overall tone comes across to me (as an interested non-US reader) as too flattering
". Can you please expand on this and perhaps offer some suggestions for changes? Otherwise, the tag should be removed. Thanks. -
theWOLFchild
23:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The Products section looks like an exhaustive company catalog of every bullet and gun they have ever made. I propose to split off 90% of the material to List of Smith & Wesson products leaving a brief summary of the major groups of products and a link to the list page. That will free up space for adding in some controversy material like the glock lawsuit over patent infringement. This move will go a long way toward solving the fansite problem and serves the reader who wants an overview on the company not a sea of letters and numbers linked to numerous product pages. Legacypac ( talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We would still include some high level product info and a "Main...S&W products" link of course but half the page being a product catalog is one of the big reasons it reads promotional. I'd want to do this on my laptop not phone. Legacypac ( talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know when they started making this model? My pair is over 20 yes. 98.20.134.48 ( talk) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Placing this here due to COI instead of adding it directly to article:
S&W announced their very first lever-action rifle in 2024, propose this addition as the last entry under Smith_&_Wesson#Rifles_and_carbines:
During the 2024 SHOT Show, Smith & Wesson announced their first lever-action rifle, the Model 1854, chambered in .44 Magnum. [1] [2] [3] LoVeloDogs ( talk) 22:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Smith & Wesson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Be good if someone opened a discussion (and everyone should watch WP:3RR) but calling other editors socks/trolls/employees of S&W is not going to fly. Article semi-protected. -- NeilN talk to me 14:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Refusing to include ANYTHING about criticism of a manufacturer of a product used to kill people is crazy. Thos page reads like a fanpage for S&W with no balance. Would we exclude all criticism of cigarette manufacturers from Wikipedia? Legacypac ( talk) 16:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Cars are designed for transportation, not killing, so that is an inappropriate comparision" - Actually, just to be clear, the civilian-variant of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people either. While it is based on a military rifle (M-16) that was designed primarily to wound (as described above by 72b) and yes, kill enemy combatants, the semi-auto AR-15 sold on the civilian market is intended for target-shooting, hunting, collecting, etc., not killing people. That said, based on the recent high-profile involvement of ARs in mass-shootings, including, I believe, ARs made by S&W, the inclusion of a brief, well-sourced and properly written, neutral comment about these incidents and the public's reaction, would not be out of line here. (jmho) tVVc 04:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] Legacypac ( talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I removed a sentence from the lede which states that the arms are a standard for police and armed forces. The lede is a summary of the contents of the body and I couldn’t find a part in the body to which this summary pertains. I therefore removed it as uncited, pending either a citation or the addition of a section in the body which warrants its mention uncited in the lede. Edaham ( talk) 02:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
While the article’s history section focuses on historical usage. The lede was suggesting that the usage of these devices as standard is current. I did actually find lots of info on current usage via a search so it probably is sourcable. Edaham ( talk) 03:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
At least in its current form. According to American Outdoor Brands [3] S&W is just an operating division of the company. Since we have two pages and the one at the correct name is very short we should be merging them. Legacypac ( talk) 04:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@JzG, if you are going to tag the article I think you should say what is wrong on the talk page. Else how can other editors know what you feel needs to be corrected. Springee ( talk) 11:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The Smith and Wesson page should be moved over the American Outdoor Brands Corporation title. The merger info at American Outdoor Brands Corporation should be merged in to thr longer article. The minor other businesses under AOBC should be covered in short sections, with the S&W section being the main section. I'd suggest something like "AOBC's primary brand is S&W and the company was called S&W until 2017." Legacypac ( talk) 17:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
JzG - First off, do you think both of these tags are necessary? Seems a little redundant, wouldn't one suffice? Second, can you point out just what part(s) of this article supports the addition of these tags? - theWOLFchild 04:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@ JzG:, sorry my previous ping didn't work. Anyway, can you describe the issues? Currently we would have no way to know if your concerns have been addressed. Springee ( talk) 11:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The merger is one issue. The fan/peacock problem is another issue. To solve the fan/peacock issues we need to trim out material that is promotional without imparting useful information. Anything that is best hosted on the company's own website should be removed. In the other direction the page should cover important criticism from NRA et al, anti-gun interests, and investor side commentary. The page needs to move from "what the company would write about itself" to reflect "what othere write about the company". If this came through AfC as is it would be rejected as NPOV, although I would accept it as notable and tag it for cleanup. Legacypac ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think the tags belong. Lots of the article is stuff which would only matter to a corporation and their potential clients, is primary sourced and dubiously notable." - Oh FFS... like what?? You and couple others saying there's "stuff" in no way supports those tags or a need for any kind of change to the page. People with concerns about this content need to start supplying actual examples, or the tags will be removed.
...I think the idea of a civilian owning a gun is completely moronic..." - I'm hoping that when you wrote that, you hadn't considered that numerous contributors here are also firearms enthusiasts; civilians who own firearms for hunting, target shooting, competitions, collecting, or any legal reason they damn well please, with no intention of "blowing anyone's head off", and you just insulted every one of them. Is a farmer that owns a varmint rifle for pest control a "moron"? Is the logger who works deep in wooded areas and owns pack rifle for protection a "moron"? Are all the Native and Inuit peoples of North America that have firearms to hunt and feed their families "morons"? If a long-time contributer who has spent countless hours working to help build and maintain this project, were to tell you here that they own a firearm for target shooting as a hobby, would you call them a "moron" (figuratively) to their face? I think you should strike that remark and rethink the wording of your personal "thoughts" before you post them. And lastly, don't come here preaching to others about using this page as a forum, then start spouting off with your opinions on things that aren't even the article's subject. - theWOLFchild 06:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac, actually, I was asking another editor to not "personalize this" by posting blatantly insulting comments, and also asking that we stay on topic, instead posting off-topic opinions. All of my previous posts above conform to the AE/DS. Now, which editors are "trying to explain basic wiki policy" here and who is it that keeps saying "I don't understand"...?
@Edaham, was I unclear about something? Despite multiple editors asking repeatedly, not one of the users here complaining about the neutrality of this article has yet cited a single example. You say you support the tags, I ask you for an example and you reply with "wow, erm ok". Aside from that, I don't see the "humor" in calling gun owners and fellow editors "moronic", or claiming they will "blow people's head's off, or the purpose of such personal commentary just after admonishing everyone about treating this page like forum. But, you say your were comments were only in jest, so I will agf and accept your word on that and drop the matter. I would actually like to steer back on topic, and that is, for this section at least, the reasons for these tags on the article. Can you, or Lp, point out any particular examples that make this page appear to be a "fansite" with "peacock" language? If so, that would be appreciated. Thanks - theWOLFchild 07:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Several editors have been very specific about how the page needs to be edited. Continuing to badger us is another thing you were warned not to do. You might look at the deletions and additions I and other editors you can't understand have been making for specific examples. Legacypac ( talk) 08:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And calling gun ownership (&, by extension, owners)I'm not the one who "extended" anything. Perhaps gun owners are more into extending things. In any case, by way of apology, I've created a small purple input box on the top left of my user page where people who were offended can leave comments. Have fun looking for it. It's very small. You might need a scope. Anyway laughs aside, Here's some of the stuff I found.
You said you supported the tags. I asked for a reason. Any reason. That's "nitpicking"...?
But, you're right about me being mean to you, and I should apologize for that. I shouldn't have called you "moronic".
Oh, wait...
-
theWOLFchild
11:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that those comment were highly inappropriate and instead of apologizing he just went on to make more inappropriate comments. Those comments could be construed as a personal attack. They would also speak to a editor not having neutrality and probably should not be editing here. Please keep the conversation on topic. - 72bikers ( talk) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Thewolfchild: I suggest you remove this incendiary comment: [5]. It's one thing to call an idea "moronic" and quite another to make a leap as you've done here.
In general, there's no need to respond to each and every comment, and in a combative and belittling tone. If you have concerns about a particular editor, please take it to their Talk page or to an appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No answer for a week, so the edit break is over and let's get back on topic; @ JzG: - I see you've removed the tags, then added another, but still haven't added anything substantive to the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup;
Avoid "drive-by" tagging.
Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below. Tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion.
Per your last
edit summary where you swapped tags, you stated; "it's just that the overall tone comes across to me (as an interested non-US reader) as too flattering
". Can you please expand on this and perhaps offer some suggestions for changes? Otherwise, the tag should be removed. Thanks. -
theWOLFchild
23:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The Products section looks like an exhaustive company catalog of every bullet and gun they have ever made. I propose to split off 90% of the material to List of Smith & Wesson products leaving a brief summary of the major groups of products and a link to the list page. That will free up space for adding in some controversy material like the glock lawsuit over patent infringement. This move will go a long way toward solving the fansite problem and serves the reader who wants an overview on the company not a sea of letters and numbers linked to numerous product pages. Legacypac ( talk) 08:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We would still include some high level product info and a "Main...S&W products" link of course but half the page being a product catalog is one of the big reasons it reads promotional. I'd want to do this on my laptop not phone. Legacypac ( talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know when they started making this model? My pair is over 20 yes. 98.20.134.48 ( talk) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Placing this here due to COI instead of adding it directly to article:
S&W announced their very first lever-action rifle in 2024, propose this addition as the last entry under Smith_&_Wesson#Rifles_and_carbines:
During the 2024 SHOT Show, Smith & Wesson announced their first lever-action rifle, the Model 1854, chambered in .44 Magnum. [1] [2] [3] LoVeloDogs ( talk) 22:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
References