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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
This is a central discussion about sources used on this project's articles. Relevant policies and guidelines are:
Disagreements about outcomes should be taken to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.
Archived discussion [2]
Archived discussion [4]
Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the main author Jeff Quinn.
Archive discussion [6]
Unreliable because it is an anonymous website with no claims of expertise and no editorial review.
I removed all citations to this source. For articles about H&K firearms, or wherever it seemed likely that editors might want to use this website as a source again, I posted a notice pointing back to this section on the talk page. For example: [7]. One cite was restored, so I tagged it as SPS and left a note on the talk page. [8] I left the links when they were "External links". In one case I deleted material describing a test conducted by someone at the website, since there can't be any other sources for it. [9] Rezin ( talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This should be an easy one. This is clearly a self-published website, but the author, Anthony G. Williams, is clearly a widely recognized expert. Rezin ( talk) 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliable SPS because the author is a published expert.
This appears to be a self-published source. There's no description of the webmaster's credentials, and the rest of the website make it look like he's primarily a computer geek. Much of the content appears to be reprints from firearms magazine, or material copied from manufacturers. The reprints are presumably reliable, though the copyright issue may be a bit murky. The citations should reference the original source and the Remtek site, unless someone can find the originals. Anything which doesn't have an original source from a reliable publication is probably unreliable. Rezin ( talk) 01:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Reprints of published articles are presumably reliable. Self-published articles with no provenance are probably not reliable.
Most of the citations were to reprints, which I filled in with better citations. A few were unsigned pieces which I marked with SPS tags. I left the external links in place, except where they duplicated links to citations. Rezin ( talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a little tricky- the website has been offline for over a year. The only comment I can find on it is from an editor who made a page about firearms sources (I guess he was working on the same effort I am) who said the data was user-supplied or derived from COTW. In any case, it's clearly a self-published source. The author/owner makes no claim to expertise and my best efforts to find his name and see if he's published anything haven't turned up any other writings. So I'd assume that it would not count as a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin ( talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I like this site: the author does straigthforward and informative tests, shows his setup, and does it all with a cheerful tone. I'm surprised by how little it's used. Unfortunately, he does not make any claims of expertise. His bio in "About Us" does not list any previous publications. The only previous discussion on WP was during a an assessment review for a MilHistory A-level, in which the use of this source was a significant sticking point. I regret to say that this site probably has to be designated an unreliable SPS. Rezin ( talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin ( talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The main author and webmaster, Dean Speir, lists extensive credentials on an outside website: [19]. He has been called an 'expert' by other reputable authors. OTOH, one WP editor has repeatedly challenged its reliability. That editor has said the site "uses sensational wording" and the site "is filled full of inaccurate language". Another editor said it "needs to be looked at - claims to be reliable but doesn't seem to meet WP:RS". Neither of those give policy based reasons to discount its reliability. The site does host writings by other authors, such as Daniel (DE) Watters, who may not have the same level of expertise as Speir, so caution is still required. The site does not seem to have the level of editorial oversight required to allow non-experts to be considered reliable. My assessment is that Speir is a recognized and published expert, but that other material needs to be evaluated individually. Rezin ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster Dean Speir, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.
Another tricky one. The site has a masthead-type staff, but the owner/webmaster/editor-in-chief/main contributor is a single person. For those reasons, I'd categorize it as a self-published source except when publishing someone besides Chuck Hawks. There seem to be quite a few discussions of his site in webforums, but those have no bearing on our decision here. On WP, There's been an unusual amount of discussion. There was a complaint about a link to a password protected page - apparently some of the content is for website members only. However such sources are allowed, per WP:V, although the large number of password-protected links makes verifying material more difficult.. An anonymous editor calls him "a well respected and widely published firearms and reloading expert." Two different editors question the accuracy of certain facts from the site. An editor finds an incorrect fact from an article by a 3rrd party on the site that was subsequently corrected. One editor said that he is not a reliable source for military firearms. And another editor finds a Hawks' article to be superior to a Wikipedia article on the same topic. (Faint praise!) An editor of a naval article said that the source looks self-published and therefore not to be relied upon. However the bottom line is that I can't find any evidence that Hawks has been published outside of his own website. If so, his self-published articles would not qualify as reliable for Wikipedia purposes. The big question is whether the site should be categorized as self-published or not. Rezin ( talk) 01:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Appears to meet some standards of reliability. Editors should be cautious about using it for contentious claims. Rezin ( talk) 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
While it's hard to pin down, it appears that this is a self-published source. There's a page describing its origin which almost exclusively uses the singular pronoun. [22] Later entries often use plural pronouns, but never identify who the other people are. The "About Us" page just lists a mailing address, but it's clear that it's Mel Ewing's site. [23] [24] He indicates he's a veteran, but doesn't list any previous publications. The site puts out a newsletter, but I can't find any masthead to indicate other people have editorial oversight. The site sells goods and services, which appears to be its primary purpose. The WHOIS and FFL listings are to a private residence. [25] The reviews, etc, seem to be written mostly, or perhaps exclusively, by Ewing. [26] [27] The previous commentary on WP has been very negative: "it isn't reliable, is is SPS, unedited, and no sign of expertise"; "a very poor source of information on historical persons, since it's been caught editing in its own members names as "famous historical snipers!" before, inflating kill numbers, and similar indiscretions"; "notoriously vandalised/suspect/incorrect"; "isn't a real ref and wouldn't stand up to WP:RS"; "bullshit from some SniperCentral site"; "questionable link". So, altogether, it appears to be a self-published source written by someone who has never been published previously. Rezin ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
This is an acknowledged self-published website, put out by Adam Firestone (not the winemaker). He apparently writes articles, sells curios and relics, etc. The articles there appear well written and cite sources. It was active from 1999 to 2001, and apparently hasn't been updated in over a decade. His outside credentials are significant, but maybe not relevant as they seem to be mostly connected with cybersecurity: [29] [30] [31] He says he wrote a book a government pistol contracts, but I can't find it. Maybe self-published? One of his gigs is as a technical weapons consultant to fiction writers. In addition to a blog, http://adamfirestoneconsultant.blogspot.com/, he also writes a regular column for (I kid you not) 'Romance University', [32]. Several of his articles for that 'university' include clear plagiarism of material from Wikipedia, etc.
Given the venue, it's hard to blame him for that. The only thing close to a discussion on WP is an editor expressing disbelief at an assertion from the site. I'd conclude that the website is self-published and that the author does not exactly meet WP standards for a published expert. Rezin ( talk) 02:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
Generally unreliable because it's an open wiki, however contributions by credentialed experts are probably reliable when they are working within their fields of expertise.
This is almost a pro forma entry: John Taffin is a well-known and well-respected writer. I don't think there's any question that he's a recognized expert. However, it does need to be pointed out that sixguns.com is a self-published website, and as such may not be used in reference to living people. Also it includes "guest writers", none of whom have the same reputation as Taffin. The presumed outcome here would be that the entries by Taffin are reliable but other entries need to be evaluated individually. Rezin ( talk) 04:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster John Taffin, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.
The only previous discussion on WP is one I started last week. The website is apparently some kind of group blog. Its "About" page does not list any editors or contributors. Most articles are unsigned. Some are signed, [36] but they don't link to biographies listing credentials. I'd conclude that this site does not meet WP standards for a reliable source. Since it's mostly anonymous, it can't qualify for the expert exemption to SPS. Rezin ( talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert. May change if the author becomes a published expert.
Another self-published website. The bottom of the page says the copyright holders (and presumably the main contributors) are "RK Smith~Dan Reynolds~Cliff Carlisle ". RK Smith is probably Reine Smith. None of those contributors appear to have ever been published before. The home page has a weird conspiracy theory about the Rothschilds. All in all, this doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 21:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by non-experts.
These two websites are twins as far as I can tell - run by the same people with lots of intermixed links. In addition to original pieces they host copies of previously published articles. The "About us" page lists an "editor in chief" and a set of regular contributors. At least one. Kelly Bachand, is notable in his own right. However most articles I looked at are unsigned. The discussion on Wikipedia is sparse: one IP says it looks reliable. AliveFreeHappy says "Neat articles, but not sure about cartridge dimensions." Does anyone else know more? If not, my assessment is that this has sufficient editorial oversight to avoid being a self-published source. That would only apply to articles, of course, and not their forums. Rezin ( talk) 21:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source due to the appearance of strong editorial oversight.
This is, according to its home page, "a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing." I wish we could call it reliable, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria. The main webmaster/author is Nathan Foster. He has written a book, The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Rifles, but it's clearly self-published. [44] I can't find any sign that he's been published by reliable 3rd parties. So this seems to be another less-than-reliable SPS. Rezin ( talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
There has been some discussion of the reliability of this source, much of it involving two editors. (Both of them are still active in case anyone thinks pinging them would be helpful.) One editor has said " at best only marginally reliable", includes "seemingly incorrect, or at least very inflated" claims. Another editor agrees about the "lack of authenticity" and complains elsewhere about their "vandalism". A third calls it "unreliable". OTOH, one editor says "I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect." The bottom of the bdmilitary page says it is part of the Defensechat Network at www.defensechat.com. That link goes to an empty wordpress blog. An editor here says the owner is Ashiqur Rahman of Sydney, Australia. An IP editor from Australia was accused of spamming links to it. There is a Facebook page. [46] It says the site's mission is to "Inform the world about the strategic importance of Bangladesh and create a positive image of the Bangladesh armed forces." An editor reports that it has or used to have the motto, "In Allah we trust & all others we dominate". The "About" page says its founder and staff are all former members of the Bangladesh military, but doesn't give any of their names. Because of its size and complexity, it's doubtful that this is a self-published source. OTOH, it does not seem to have editorial rigor. Based on looking at it and the WP:RSN thread, my assessment is that this would qualify as a questionable source. Rezin ( talk) 21:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Questionable source of marginal reliability. References should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and editors should be cautious about using it for contentious claims.
An editor has called it a "barely" reliable "blog" with "an obscure publication process and doesn't meet this reliability standard." In discussion of a UK-oriented article an editor called it "a highly pro-gun website with an US domestic agenda" that's inappropriate for a UK article. The draft article about it calls it a "news aggregator" and mentions several controversies. Another editors said its material needs to be looked at with a "critical eye". The list of contributors includes many notable gun rights advocates and other conservative commentators. Their contribution are probably akin to opinion pieces rather than editorially reviewed reporting. The issue of strong advocacy is largely outside the rules pertaining reliable sources and is addressed by proper use per WP:NPOV. This site does feature a full editorial staff and an explicit editorial process. For those reasons it does not appear to be an SPS. However a lot of what they carry are press releases, which are still self-published sources despite being reprinted on their site. Press releases are a special kind of SPS but follow the same basic rule: they can only be used as a source about the issuer. They may not be used for unrelated facts and especially not for unrelated living people. Unfortunately AmmoLand doesn't tag the press releases as such. One typical convention for press releases is that the last paragraph is "about" the issuing organization, and on this site they are posted without a byline. WP editors need to cite the site with care and indicate whether they're referencing a press release or original editorial content. I'd boil this down to "Reliable for original content, while the use of reprinted press releases and opinion pieces must follow applicable WP rules." Rezin ( talk) 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable for original content, while the use of reprinted press releases and opinion pieces must follow applicable WP rules. Care is needed to distinguish the type and authorship of their articles.
An editor questions its editorial oversight. Another calls it a "gun-fan" site. Another calls it an "unreliable source" and another says he doesn't believe it is a reliable source. Other comments include: "inaccurate ", "not a reliable source", has "quite a bit of incorrect information". However an IP user calls their forum "an excellent [49] source for new articles and pictures alike". It mostly seems to be a collection of user-submitted photos. There's no "about" page, no claim that the webmaster has any special experience, no editorial review process to ensure accuracy. A little digging shows that the webmaster is probably the guy featured in this article, [50], a USAF veteran, inventor, and survival expert. I can't find any mention of writing credentials though. Based on previous discussions, the lack of relevant webmaster/owner credentials, and the lack of editorial oversight, this does not seem to be a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert and/or it contains user-submitted material without sufficient editorial review.
The only prior comment is from an editor who said it is "far from being a reliable source". It is obviously a self-published source by a nominally anonymous author/webmaster who makes no claim to having been published before. His name isn't hard to find, but I still can't find any sign that he's considered a published expert. Therefore this site would not meet the standards for reliability. Rezin ( talk) 00:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
This is difficult to evaluate. It gives the appearance of a big website with editorial supervision. But it's almost entirely anonymous. The "About us" page is very short on specifics. It uses the plural pronoun "we", but in such a way that it seems to be written by and about one person. For example, "...we run SSD on Zulu time zone (GMT) since we travel so much. It helps us synch up our content no matter where we are" or "If you have an Xbox Live account, you can friend request “Tactical Fanboy”." Much of the content looks like rehashed press releases and positive reviews of the sponsors' products. None of those factors make this look like a reliable source. Does anyone else know more about the website? Rezin ( talk) 21:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Not enough information to determine reliability.
One editor says it "is not always the best source to reference as in debates above, it tends to be out of date". Another editor says the site is right about a certain fact. Another editor says it is "a user contributed website" and therefore not reliable, and elsewhere that it's a personal website. Another editor describes it as "anonymous" and says it does not qualify as a verifiable source. Looking at the "personal appeal" page, it's clear that this is a one-man website. The owner/author, Andrius Genys, makes no claim to expertise. He appears to have self-published a variety of weaponry-related books available on Amazon and Lulu. [55](lulu.com/shop/search.ep?contributorId=1274887) In summary, this source appears to be an SPS published by a non-expert which would not qualify as a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
I changed the class and importance of these articles today: Semi-automatic firearm [56] Semi-automatic pistol [57] Semi-automatic rifle [58] Semi-automatic shotgun [59]
... based on this project's Quality and Importance scales. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently had to pull most of the material in the Gun law in the United States for WP:COPYVIO. Working today on the "Semi-automatic..." articles, I am beginning to wonder if that is a problem here, too. Semi-automatic firearm has had a "refimprove" tag on it since 2009. Semi-automatic pistol has been tagged since 2010. Semi-automatic rifle (tagged since 2011) and Semi-automatic shotgun (tagged today), are less problematic because they're much smaller than the SAF and SAP articles. Opinions, anyone? Lightbreather ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My WP work recently has me moving about quite a bit, and this came to my attention today: the overlap and discrepancies between Firearm#History and History of the firearm. For instance, the former article mentions greek fire, but the latter does not. The former also says that "History of the firearm" is the main article (for firearm history), but then goes on with many subsections of material that may or may not be in the other article. "Firearm" was created in September 2001, and "History of the firearm" was created in April 2007. "Firearm" is rated Top-importance to this project, but "History of the firearm" is unrated. Both have large blocks of text that lack inline citations. The whole scope is outside my general knowledge and interest. I don't want to touch them, but maybe one or more members of the project would be interested and better qualified than I? Or maybe the military history or technology projects? Lightbreather ( talk) 18:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This scope of this project now includes "political" topics such as organizations and legislation related to firearms. Many of the issues with those topics are distinct from those concerning the firearms themselves. Per discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Source discussion 2 and User talk:Rezin#Gun politics discussion from Mike's page, some editors think it would be beneficial to split out the political topics into a task force, which would function as a sub-project. The effect would be to remove those articles from the watchlist, etc, of the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms and allow interested editors to more easily focus on them. The hope is that this would spark new interest in improving politically related firearms articles, and lower the level of controversy on the remaining articles. One option is to make it a joint task force with Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, should those projects be interested. This proposal does not require any special approval from the overall WP community, but it should have a consensus of users at this project. Please give your views here. Rezin ( talk) 19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please visit the discussion here. The article has been nominated for GA-review, spawning a discussion whether the Military Factory website is a WP:RS. Opinions are welcome. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The technical stuff is not my forte. Could someone either A) create a Threaded barrel article, or B) add the information to Gun barrel? Thanks. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, I have proposed merging Muzzle (firearms) into Gun barrel. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a consensus among active editors to create a "Gun Politics Task Force" as a sub-project of WikiProject Firearms. See Proposal: "Gun Politics Task Force". @ Scalhotrod: has reserved the page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Gun Politics Task Force. He has also researched other task forces which we can use as a template. The most important issue to consider is the scope of the task force, and hence which articles it will include. That scope won't be fixed forever: we just need a working definition to get started. To get the ball rolling, I'd propose we might say something like, "Topics encompassing organizations, legislation, regulations, political issues, and societal effects associated with firearms." How can we improve on that? Rezin ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
[62] I was WP:BOLD and moved Lee–Enfield from a hyphen to an ndash. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 11:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Enfields: can somebody indentify the rifle in these pictures so they don’t have to stay in the unidentified firearms category? Thanks in advance ✦ hugarheimur 02:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
All of the cartridge pages out there (e.g. 5.56×45mm NATO, 9×19mm Parabellum, and 7.62×39mm) have the "mm" next to the last digit of the cartridge name. However, 40 mm grenade, 10 mm caliber, and 125 mm smoothbore ammunition all have a space. I may have to self-revert a bunch of stuff because I've been operating under the assumption that "40 mm" means "40 millimeters" (as in "the ant walked 40 mm") whereas "40mm" means "40mm caliber" (as in "40mm grenade"). What's the dividing line here? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Schwarzlose M07/12 to be moved to Schwarzlose M.7. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we add something in the project guidelines about making sure that the caliber is generally fully designated (e.g. "9×19mm" or "9mm Luger" rather than just "9mm")? There are lots of articles with the caliber designated as something like "7.62 mm". We shouldn't make it incumbent upon the reader to follow a series of links to understand that an AKM, FAL, PPSh-41, and Dragunov all take different 7.62 mm ammunition. Likewise, mixing metric and imperial units gets ugly (e.g. "The armed forces of X use calibers 9×19mm, 5.56×45mm, 7.62×51mm, and .50 BMG"). IMO it's easier for the reader to understand if we keep things consistently metric or imperial when in a table. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is some edit dispute going on at Bushmaster M17S, so it would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved party could swing by to help resolve the discord, and/or help to bring the article up to snuff. Thanks! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Draft:Gas-Checks in British RML Heavy Guns? Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).-- Lucas559 ( talk) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone in the Firearms project review the 156 entries in the Category:Deferred-Class Firearms articles and see which ones are really deferred and which ones belong in other classes?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed this at .22 Long Rifle & .22 Extra Long: somebody's systematically deleting all the capitals in caliber names, including .38 Special & .357 Magnum. Plus, somebody moved .22 Extra Long to .22 extra long... (I've moved it back...) I've never seen this in the sources; they all use caps. The rationale given is WP:MOSCAPS, which, I suggest, is contrary to what the sources all say in these cases. IMO, attention to this is needed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking for additional input (or consensus) on a discussion for creating a subcategory in Category:Firearms by caliber which would be for the articles 2 bore, 4 bore, 6 bore, 8 bore and Six bore, which I started because the cat was tagged at some point as a container cat (subcats only), apparently to subcategorize by caliber. Slivicon ( talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage of Grain is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
In June the United States government published this: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf proposed change to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR were originally intended to control international distribution of military hardware. The proposed regulatory change may be intended to control distribution of information about improvised firearms. Crude firearms have long been assembled from parts not meeting US legal definitions of firearms. Materials science advances and expanded tool availability has improved opportunities for low-cost manufacturing techniques to construct more sophisticated firearms similar to those suitable for military use, and for which civilian manufacture, transfer, possession, and/or use may be legally restricted. Although the proposed regulations may have been intended to expand ITAR's regulatory reach to restrict distribution of instructions on how to manufacture improvised military firearms from materials not subject to weapons transfer limitations under previous regulatory definitions, concern has been expressed that the proposed expanded regulatory reach might be interpreted to apply to internet publication of information about a wider variety of subject matter related to other weaponry.
The comment period for the proposed regulatory change expired on 3 August 2015; and corresponding regulatory changes may now be implemented. Can someone recommend reliable sources for information about the ultimate fate of these proposed regulations? Thewellman ( talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I encountered this at Mauser MG 213: a metric case designation. I expect it's commonplace, so I wondered: is there a way to use the convert template to produce a metric designation without the "extra" unit? That is, not this: 9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at
Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Memorial plaque concerning whether or not to include an image of a memorial plaque for victims of criminal use in a firearm article. Thank you,
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In October 2011, it was suggested that " List of service rifles of national armies" be merged into " Service rifle". Members of this WikiProject are hence requested to follow up the merger proposal and conclude. This is long-pending. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ Gundisp}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Just an FYI but currently Template:WikiProject Firearms doesn't allow for draft, redirect, template or other classes so pages like Draft talk:Smith & Wesson Model 3913LS are currently hidden within the 950 or so pages at Category:NA-Class Firearms articles. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 Colorado Springs shooting to be moved to 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 San Bernardino shooting to be moved to San Bernardino shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 04:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting to be moved to 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 San Bernardino shooting to be moved to 2015 San Bernardino attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 04:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Defensive gun use to be moved to Defensive Gun Use in the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 06:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Personal armor to be moved to Body armor. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 08:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a clarification for section 1.2 Coaxial:
I believe that the article is confusing "coaxial gun" with "spotting gun."
Coaxial also means "planes intersecting in a straight line." [1] If the barrel of the gun is the z-axis then the x-axis plane and y-axis plane share the same line (the gun barrel going thru the origin 0,0) and, thus, are coaxial. In other words, the traverse and elevation share the same line. This is implemented by a large ball and socket joint with the gun barrel going thru the ball.
A coaxial machinegun can be mounted with the main armament in a turret or on the front or side of an armored vehicle.
72.197.193.4 (
talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Rick
References
On the talk page for "Equipment of the United States Armed Forces", I have posted a question addressing most if not all firearms articles. Specifically, what 'wars' to list and not list in the infobox. Looking for a centralized discussion there. See Talk:Equipment of the United States Armed Forces#"Wars" (infobox). Thanks - theWOLFchild 12:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we not list .38 Special as a chambering for every .357 Magnum gun? It is ambiguous if that gun is available in .357 Magnum and a .38 Special only chambering too. Yes, .38 Special can be used in .357 Magnum revolvers, but so can .38 Long Colt and .38 Short Colt but we don't have to list that. It's explained in the .357 Magnum article. Same goes for .44 Special and Magnum, .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .500 S&W, etc. -- Goldenbirdman ( talk) 23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I was reading the article under the above title and was surprised to read "Men must wear the holster, magazine holders etc. in the belt at waist level". I have never seen any man at an IPSC match wear a utility belt at that height: Most men wear the utility belt at hip level. The waist is generally just above the navel, so men would have to have short arms to safely reach a pistol so holstered. ( 220.235.226.215 ( talk) 03:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC))
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting to be moved to 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Orlando nightclub shooting to be moved to 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 07:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. - Mr X 13:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Is was largely marketing stuff taken directly off their website, a product list that fell afoul of WP:NOTDIR, and some general OR observations. The article didn't even clearly state the founding date (1993) or that Louis Imperato founded it. So I did some tagging, removed marketing cruft, added a few basic sources, fixed some formatting, etc. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Munich shootings to be moved to 2016 Munich shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Munich shooting to be moved to 2016 Munich shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 07:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
See discussion here: Talk:SIG MCX#RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I've written an essay addressing the criminal use of firearms. WP:GUNCRIME. It related directly to the scope of this project. Where's the best place to include it? Felsic2 ( talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Felsic2, I think you should propose your essay for inclusion into the essay in this project. I think you may have some good points which could be included as gun writing principles, instead of argument, rebuttals, if the project team agree. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Thomas.W..." WP:GUNCRIME, or " User:Felsic2/Gun use" as the correct address is, isn't a serious WP essay but a POV-pushers' how-to-guide, hidden away in userspace to prevent others from editing it, and doesn't belong here. WP:GUNUSE is another redirect to the same page, so if you see any of those links posted somewhere it's just Felsic2's personal opinions, and not a page that carries any weight."-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I have some questions about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines.
I realize that some editors consider criminal use to be political content and so may prefer to avoid this discussion, but I hope someone involved in the project can reply. Felsic2 ( talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Criminal use I think is use of a gun in breaking a law, like killing people with a gun in a mass shooting, or in a theft. Users are people who use a gun, for military, civilian legal use or criminal use. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What it says: The section says that criminal uses are allowed. However it sets restrictions on their inclusion: increased notoriety, sales, or legal restrictions. It says that criminal uses may only be included under certain circumstances. Events which don't meet those criteria are excluded. Not only are there no such criteria elsewhere on Wikipedia, even this Wikiproject doesn't use it for other material. This section says in forceful language that some facts are prohibited, no matter how well-sourced. As written, this section is a prima facie violation of the neutral point of view policy.
How it's used: On talk pages this section is treated as dogma to shut down conversations, as if it were adopted Wikipedia policy. They treat it as a done deal, with this section binding on article editing. For example: "Please stop adding this to the article. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is quite clear and the recent school shootings do not meet the criteria for inclusion." Or "We don't litter Wikipedia gun articles with that kind of trivia. Read the project guidelines. Criminal use is not noteworthy unless it greatly increased the gun's notoriety. There may be lots of news articles that tell which type of gun the killer used, but that doesn't mean anything. Cite a source explicitly saying that this incident greatly increased the Beretta CX4's notoriety or sales, otherwise the information is not notable and for that reason will continue to be removed." (There are many examples like this.) It's used the same way in edit summaries: "rv per WP:GUNS#Criminal use", "Reverted per the Firearms Project Guidelines", etc. This section is used as an excuse to prohibit material, with the asserted status of a policy. It's not used to include info.
Why it matters: This Wikiproject section is skewing the editorial content of Wikipedia. Firearms articles include lengthy, unsourced specifications of interest to enthusiasts alone. They exclude material of interest to general readers, such as famous cases in which guns was used. This section's requirements, and its use, violate core content and editing policies. They say articles should be constructed neutrally and that projects do not own topics or set policy.
What's the solution? : There are no other "criminal use" sections in other Wikipedia projects. It's unnecessary and misused. The simplest solution would be deleting it. Another solution would be having a general "users" section that sets neutral guidelines for all material about users, good or bad, cops or criminals. Another would be to set content-neutral parameters for users, such as quality sources that mention the topic, and suggestins on how to treat various uses. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The following is a recent edit to the Mini-14 page...
"Effects of criminal use
This is what I'm talking about. Now you can call it whatever you want. However, by any other name, it is still a body count.-- RAF910 ( talk) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the 4 examples you listed are 4 instances of notorious criminal use of the gun, and are to be stated in the Mini-14 page but written something like the example below, with a link to each of the 4 articles. I don't think the criminal facts are to be duplicated and repeated within the gun article, but do think the notoriety be listed so as to be comprehensive in an encyclopedia, else I think the article is deliberately negligent and censured and unintentionally glorifies the gun. The gun is not an isolated item, it is used in the world, and good and bad uses are described in an encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia stating notable facts, good and bad, more than a catalog. Much as I dislike the bad facts, or info and photos I dislike in other articles, I accept their existence in an encyclopedia, in gun articles, and the other articles.
Draft Example: "Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents." CuriousMind01 ( talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there an article that covers these different patterns of 7.62x51 rifles? I've looked at the articles individually and none seem to really explain the difference or showcase the fact that they may be incompatible. What we have is the AR10 article which states "These rifle differ from both the current and original Armalite AR10 in a few minor dimensions that make some the Armalite AR10B not as modular as the rest of the AR based firearms." Sephiroth storm ( talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
A user today moved Gun Politics in Switzerland to Gun Laws in Switzerland. Seems fine to me, what discussion of politics there is, is quite minimal. However, doing some poking around, There seems to be quite a lot of fragmentation in this area.
If you go to Category:Gun politics by country it's kind of a soup. Some articles are named Gun Politics, some are Gun Laws, and there's articles in the category, and articles as subcategories. As well, if you go to the main Gun politics page for the category - Overview of gun laws by nation There's a mishmash of different naming conventions among the main articles referenced, e.g.
Along with the expected bunch of 'Gun politics in' articles.
I would personally lead towards renaming all such articles as "Firearm law in", but since some countries have additional sets of rules for non-firearms, such as pellet guns, I think the original "Gun law in" is more appropriate, because no distinction needs to be made within the article if there are specific laws for non-firearms covered as well. The whole 'Firearm/Firearms', 'Law/Laws' thing adds further complication, as pretty much all are valid.
I also think that where appropriate, a separate 'Gun politics in' naming convention is fine, as in a separate Gun Politics in the United States, where the matter is contentious.
Thoughts? I'm not a member of the project so I may be missing relevant issues. As well I don't want to step on anyone's feet. Anastrophe ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Anastrophe, I would prefer to keep the discussion here. A template talk page is not an ideal place to talk about article naming and content. I would have brought it here sooner, but I didn't know what was the relevant WikiProject.
The simple fact is that none the articles
that were in the template are about gun politics except the United States one.
Felsic2 moved most of those articles to "Gun laws in..." yesterday with the edit summary, "covers laws rather than politics", but the same applies to the articles that weren't moved. "Gun politics", in the sense that we understand it, i.e the debate between "gun rights" and "gun control", does not seem to exist anywhere else in the world; if it does, it is not covered in those articles. Note that there isn't even a
Gun politics article: it redirects to
Overview of gun laws by nation.
Nick Cooper remarked in the discussion on the template talk page that "the problem overall is that many of the country pages seem to have taken the American original (created back in 2004, although the same editor also created the Australia and UK pages on the same date) as a model". And it shows. Firearms articles in several cases have an Americocentric cast. For instance, several articles talk of the right to "keep and bear arms" in the constitution – complete with wikilink – which is more a reflection of the American debate than a discussion of the constitutional basis of firearms legislation in the country concerned. Indeed,
Gun politics in Honduras has an entire section just to say that their constitution doesn't have a provision for the right to keep and bear arms.
Even the phrase "gun laws" is a particularly American one. You don't hear it in Europe, and I'm pretty sure you don't hear it in the Antipodes. "Legislation" is the word used in Wikipedia article names, not "laws". "Firearms" (or less often "firearm") is used in article naming except for a type of gun (Rheinmetall 120 mm gun) or a phrase (run and gun). This project is called Wikiproject Firearms (plural), not WikiProject Guns. All of those articles should be renamed to "Firearms legislation in...", as should the
Gun laws by country template and the
Firearm laws category. Naming an article "Firearms legislation in..." need not prevent discussion of pellet guns. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
As regards categories, all of the articles that were renamed yesterday have been taken out of
Category:Gun politics by country, but there are still subcats which are misnamed.
Category:Gun politics in Australia, for instance, contains articles on legislation and on shootings, but only one article on a political party. I don't know what the best category name would be, but it should be renamed and taken out of the Gun politics cat.
I think we have an opportunity to sort out this tangle now, and I think we should take it.
Scolaire (
talk) 08:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed Trigger finger (medical condition); would the medical use be the primary topic, or the firearms use? (we don't seem to have something listed for firearms at triggerfinger (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The SIG MCX page now has had added a "worst mass shooting" that is included under criminal use for the firearm, contrary to WP Firearm Criminal Use guidelines. An RFC on this has been posted on the talk page. You may comment there on whether or not this should be inserted into firearm articles. 16:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I added a request for comments in the Ruger Mini 154 talk page. I could not get the link to work here.
The title is: == Rfc: Add major incidents to Ruger Mini 14 Suggestion Comment WikiProject assessment Reply Comment ==
The RFC instruction said the Rfc notice could be added to a project page. Thank you, CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Rfc: Add major incidents to article? (strangely, on my browser this doesn't link to the thread, just to the top of the talk page). Scolaire ( talk) 17:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
While Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use prohibits most inclusions, it does permit a few (a controversial stand, in my opinion). However it does not offer any advice on how to include the information or where. That's the main job of advice pages. Should it be written as prose in the "history" section? Should it be mixed in with other users in a bullet-pointed list? Should it be in a standalone section, and if so what's the best section heading? Some options include: "Notoriety", "Civilian users", "Usage", "Criminal users", "Service use", and "Incidents". Felsic2 ( talk) 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think not stating important facts is censorship.
@ DHeyward: @ Niteshift36: The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms# Criminal use says that some criminal uses are notable enough for inclusion. That issues isn't the topic of this thread, but people can say whatever they want. However it appears that both of you oppose the section as written. If so, it would seem that there's no consensus for its continued inclusion. I don't see anyone here or above defending it, explaining why it exists or how it came to be. Does anyone want to come to its defense? Felsic2 ( talk) 21:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The section outlines a few instances in which criminal uses may be included. No one on this page has supported the section's reason for existing and a few have opposed it explicitly. So it seems there's no longer a consensus for it. Unless anyine has anything to say in its defense, I'll go ahead and either delete it, or cut it down to say that the decision should be made article by article. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
This is a central discussion about sources used on this project's articles. Relevant policies and guidelines are:
Disagreements about outcomes should be taken to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.
Archived discussion [2]
Archived discussion [4]
Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the main author Jeff Quinn.
Archive discussion [6]
Unreliable because it is an anonymous website with no claims of expertise and no editorial review.
I removed all citations to this source. For articles about H&K firearms, or wherever it seemed likely that editors might want to use this website as a source again, I posted a notice pointing back to this section on the talk page. For example: [7]. One cite was restored, so I tagged it as SPS and left a note on the talk page. [8] I left the links when they were "External links". In one case I deleted material describing a test conducted by someone at the website, since there can't be any other sources for it. [9] Rezin ( talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This should be an easy one. This is clearly a self-published website, but the author, Anthony G. Williams, is clearly a widely recognized expert. Rezin ( talk) 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliable SPS because the author is a published expert.
This appears to be a self-published source. There's no description of the webmaster's credentials, and the rest of the website make it look like he's primarily a computer geek. Much of the content appears to be reprints from firearms magazine, or material copied from manufacturers. The reprints are presumably reliable, though the copyright issue may be a bit murky. The citations should reference the original source and the Remtek site, unless someone can find the originals. Anything which doesn't have an original source from a reliable publication is probably unreliable. Rezin ( talk) 01:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Reprints of published articles are presumably reliable. Self-published articles with no provenance are probably not reliable.
Most of the citations were to reprints, which I filled in with better citations. A few were unsigned pieces which I marked with SPS tags. I left the external links in place, except where they duplicated links to citations. Rezin ( talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a little tricky- the website has been offline for over a year. The only comment I can find on it is from an editor who made a page about firearms sources (I guess he was working on the same effort I am) who said the data was user-supplied or derived from COTW. In any case, it's clearly a self-published source. The author/owner makes no claim to expertise and my best efforts to find his name and see if he's published anything haven't turned up any other writings. So I'd assume that it would not count as a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin ( talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I like this site: the author does straigthforward and informative tests, shows his setup, and does it all with a cheerful tone. I'm surprised by how little it's used. Unfortunately, he does not make any claims of expertise. His bio in "About Us" does not list any previous publications. The only previous discussion on WP was during a an assessment review for a MilHistory A-level, in which the use of this source was a significant sticking point. I regret to say that this site probably has to be designated an unreliable SPS. Rezin ( talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin ( talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The main author and webmaster, Dean Speir, lists extensive credentials on an outside website: [19]. He has been called an 'expert' by other reputable authors. OTOH, one WP editor has repeatedly challenged its reliability. That editor has said the site "uses sensational wording" and the site "is filled full of inaccurate language". Another editor said it "needs to be looked at - claims to be reliable but doesn't seem to meet WP:RS". Neither of those give policy based reasons to discount its reliability. The site does host writings by other authors, such as Daniel (DE) Watters, who may not have the same level of expertise as Speir, so caution is still required. The site does not seem to have the level of editorial oversight required to allow non-experts to be considered reliable. My assessment is that Speir is a recognized and published expert, but that other material needs to be evaluated individually. Rezin ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster Dean Speir, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.
Another tricky one. The site has a masthead-type staff, but the owner/webmaster/editor-in-chief/main contributor is a single person. For those reasons, I'd categorize it as a self-published source except when publishing someone besides Chuck Hawks. There seem to be quite a few discussions of his site in webforums, but those have no bearing on our decision here. On WP, There's been an unusual amount of discussion. There was a complaint about a link to a password protected page - apparently some of the content is for website members only. However such sources are allowed, per WP:V, although the large number of password-protected links makes verifying material more difficult.. An anonymous editor calls him "a well respected and widely published firearms and reloading expert." Two different editors question the accuracy of certain facts from the site. An editor finds an incorrect fact from an article by a 3rrd party on the site that was subsequently corrected. One editor said that he is not a reliable source for military firearms. And another editor finds a Hawks' article to be superior to a Wikipedia article on the same topic. (Faint praise!) An editor of a naval article said that the source looks self-published and therefore not to be relied upon. However the bottom line is that I can't find any evidence that Hawks has been published outside of his own website. If so, his self-published articles would not qualify as reliable for Wikipedia purposes. The big question is whether the site should be categorized as self-published or not. Rezin ( talk) 01:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Appears to meet some standards of reliability. Editors should be cautious about using it for contentious claims. Rezin ( talk) 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
While it's hard to pin down, it appears that this is a self-published source. There's a page describing its origin which almost exclusively uses the singular pronoun. [22] Later entries often use plural pronouns, but never identify who the other people are. The "About Us" page just lists a mailing address, but it's clear that it's Mel Ewing's site. [23] [24] He indicates he's a veteran, but doesn't list any previous publications. The site puts out a newsletter, but I can't find any masthead to indicate other people have editorial oversight. The site sells goods and services, which appears to be its primary purpose. The WHOIS and FFL listings are to a private residence. [25] The reviews, etc, seem to be written mostly, or perhaps exclusively, by Ewing. [26] [27] The previous commentary on WP has been very negative: "it isn't reliable, is is SPS, unedited, and no sign of expertise"; "a very poor source of information on historical persons, since it's been caught editing in its own members names as "famous historical snipers!" before, inflating kill numbers, and similar indiscretions"; "notoriously vandalised/suspect/incorrect"; "isn't a real ref and wouldn't stand up to WP:RS"; "bullshit from some SniperCentral site"; "questionable link". So, altogether, it appears to be a self-published source written by someone who has never been published previously. Rezin ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
This is an acknowledged self-published website, put out by Adam Firestone (not the winemaker). He apparently writes articles, sells curios and relics, etc. The articles there appear well written and cite sources. It was active from 1999 to 2001, and apparently hasn't been updated in over a decade. His outside credentials are significant, but maybe not relevant as they seem to be mostly connected with cybersecurity: [29] [30] [31] He says he wrote a book a government pistol contracts, but I can't find it. Maybe self-published? One of his gigs is as a technical weapons consultant to fiction writers. In addition to a blog, http://adamfirestoneconsultant.blogspot.com/, he also writes a regular column for (I kid you not) 'Romance University', [32]. Several of his articles for that 'university' include clear plagiarism of material from Wikipedia, etc.
Given the venue, it's hard to blame him for that. The only thing close to a discussion on WP is an editor expressing disbelief at an assertion from the site. I'd conclude that the website is self-published and that the author does not exactly meet WP standards for a published expert. Rezin ( talk) 02:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
Generally unreliable because it's an open wiki, however contributions by credentialed experts are probably reliable when they are working within their fields of expertise.
This is almost a pro forma entry: John Taffin is a well-known and well-respected writer. I don't think there's any question that he's a recognized expert. However, it does need to be pointed out that sixguns.com is a self-published website, and as such may not be used in reference to living people. Also it includes "guest writers", none of whom have the same reputation as Taffin. The presumed outcome here would be that the entries by Taffin are reliable but other entries need to be evaluated individually. Rezin ( talk) 04:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster John Taffin, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.
The only previous discussion on WP is one I started last week. The website is apparently some kind of group blog. Its "About" page does not list any editors or contributors. Most articles are unsigned. Some are signed, [36] but they don't link to biographies listing credentials. I'd conclude that this site does not meet WP standards for a reliable source. Since it's mostly anonymous, it can't qualify for the expert exemption to SPS. Rezin ( talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert. May change if the author becomes a published expert.
Another self-published website. The bottom of the page says the copyright holders (and presumably the main contributors) are "RK Smith~Dan Reynolds~Cliff Carlisle ". RK Smith is probably Reine Smith. None of those contributors appear to have ever been published before. The home page has a weird conspiracy theory about the Rothschilds. All in all, this doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 21:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by non-experts.
These two websites are twins as far as I can tell - run by the same people with lots of intermixed links. In addition to original pieces they host copies of previously published articles. The "About us" page lists an "editor in chief" and a set of regular contributors. At least one. Kelly Bachand, is notable in his own right. However most articles I looked at are unsigned. The discussion on Wikipedia is sparse: one IP says it looks reliable. AliveFreeHappy says "Neat articles, but not sure about cartridge dimensions." Does anyone else know more? If not, my assessment is that this has sufficient editorial oversight to avoid being a self-published source. That would only apply to articles, of course, and not their forums. Rezin ( talk) 21:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source due to the appearance of strong editorial oversight.
This is, according to its home page, "a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing." I wish we could call it reliable, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria. The main webmaster/author is Nathan Foster. He has written a book, The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Rifles, but it's clearly self-published. [44] I can't find any sign that he's been published by reliable 3rd parties. So this seems to be another less-than-reliable SPS. Rezin ( talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
There has been some discussion of the reliability of this source, much of it involving two editors. (Both of them are still active in case anyone thinks pinging them would be helpful.) One editor has said " at best only marginally reliable", includes "seemingly incorrect, or at least very inflated" claims. Another editor agrees about the "lack of authenticity" and complains elsewhere about their "vandalism". A third calls it "unreliable". OTOH, one editor says "I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect." The bottom of the bdmilitary page says it is part of the Defensechat Network at www.defensechat.com. That link goes to an empty wordpress blog. An editor here says the owner is Ashiqur Rahman of Sydney, Australia. An IP editor from Australia was accused of spamming links to it. There is a Facebook page. [46] It says the site's mission is to "Inform the world about the strategic importance of Bangladesh and create a positive image of the Bangladesh armed forces." An editor reports that it has or used to have the motto, "In Allah we trust & all others we dominate". The "About" page says its founder and staff are all former members of the Bangladesh military, but doesn't give any of their names. Because of its size and complexity, it's doubtful that this is a self-published source. OTOH, it does not seem to have editorial rigor. Based on looking at it and the WP:RSN thread, my assessment is that this would qualify as a questionable source. Rezin ( talk) 21:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Questionable source of marginal reliability. References should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and editors should be cautious about using it for contentious claims.
An editor has called it a "barely" reliable "blog" with "an obscure publication process and doesn't meet this reliability standard." In discussion of a UK-oriented article an editor called it "a highly pro-gun website with an US domestic agenda" that's inappropriate for a UK article. The draft article about it calls it a "news aggregator" and mentions several controversies. Another editors said its material needs to be looked at with a "critical eye". The list of contributors includes many notable gun rights advocates and other conservative commentators. Their contribution are probably akin to opinion pieces rather than editorially reviewed reporting. The issue of strong advocacy is largely outside the rules pertaining reliable sources and is addressed by proper use per WP:NPOV. This site does feature a full editorial staff and an explicit editorial process. For those reasons it does not appear to be an SPS. However a lot of what they carry are press releases, which are still self-published sources despite being reprinted on their site. Press releases are a special kind of SPS but follow the same basic rule: they can only be used as a source about the issuer. They may not be used for unrelated facts and especially not for unrelated living people. Unfortunately AmmoLand doesn't tag the press releases as such. One typical convention for press releases is that the last paragraph is "about" the issuing organization, and on this site they are posted without a byline. WP editors need to cite the site with care and indicate whether they're referencing a press release or original editorial content. I'd boil this down to "Reliable for original content, while the use of reprinted press releases and opinion pieces must follow applicable WP rules." Rezin ( talk) 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Reliable for original content, while the use of reprinted press releases and opinion pieces must follow applicable WP rules. Care is needed to distinguish the type and authorship of their articles.
An editor questions its editorial oversight. Another calls it a "gun-fan" site. Another calls it an "unreliable source" and another says he doesn't believe it is a reliable source. Other comments include: "inaccurate ", "not a reliable source", has "quite a bit of incorrect information". However an IP user calls their forum "an excellent [49] source for new articles and pictures alike". It mostly seems to be a collection of user-submitted photos. There's no "about" page, no claim that the webmaster has any special experience, no editorial review process to ensure accuracy. A little digging shows that the webmaster is probably the guy featured in this article, [50], a USAF veteran, inventor, and survival expert. I can't find any mention of writing credentials though. Based on previous discussions, the lack of relevant webmaster/owner credentials, and the lack of editorial oversight, this does not seem to be a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert and/or it contains user-submitted material without sufficient editorial review.
The only prior comment is from an editor who said it is "far from being a reliable source". It is obviously a self-published source by a nominally anonymous author/webmaster who makes no claim to having been published before. His name isn't hard to find, but I still can't find any sign that he's considered a published expert. Therefore this site would not meet the standards for reliability. Rezin ( talk) 00:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
This is difficult to evaluate. It gives the appearance of a big website with editorial supervision. But it's almost entirely anonymous. The "About us" page is very short on specifics. It uses the plural pronoun "we", but in such a way that it seems to be written by and about one person. For example, "...we run SSD on Zulu time zone (GMT) since we travel so much. It helps us synch up our content no matter where we are" or "If you have an Xbox Live account, you can friend request “Tactical Fanboy”." Much of the content looks like rehashed press releases and positive reviews of the sponsors' products. None of those factors make this look like a reliable source. Does anyone else know more about the website? Rezin ( talk) 21:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Not enough information to determine reliability.
One editor says it "is not always the best source to reference as in debates above, it tends to be out of date". Another editor says the site is right about a certain fact. Another editor says it is "a user contributed website" and therefore not reliable, and elsewhere that it's a personal website. Another editor describes it as "anonymous" and says it does not qualify as a verifiable source. Looking at the "personal appeal" page, it's clear that this is a one-man website. The owner/author, Andrius Genys, makes no claim to expertise. He appears to have self-published a variety of weaponry-related books available on Amazon and Lulu. [55](lulu.com/shop/search.ep?contributorId=1274887) In summary, this source appears to be an SPS published by a non-expert which would not qualify as a reliable source. Rezin ( talk) 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.
I changed the class and importance of these articles today: Semi-automatic firearm [56] Semi-automatic pistol [57] Semi-automatic rifle [58] Semi-automatic shotgun [59]
... based on this project's Quality and Importance scales. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently had to pull most of the material in the Gun law in the United States for WP:COPYVIO. Working today on the "Semi-automatic..." articles, I am beginning to wonder if that is a problem here, too. Semi-automatic firearm has had a "refimprove" tag on it since 2009. Semi-automatic pistol has been tagged since 2010. Semi-automatic rifle (tagged since 2011) and Semi-automatic shotgun (tagged today), are less problematic because they're much smaller than the SAF and SAP articles. Opinions, anyone? Lightbreather ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My WP work recently has me moving about quite a bit, and this came to my attention today: the overlap and discrepancies between Firearm#History and History of the firearm. For instance, the former article mentions greek fire, but the latter does not. The former also says that "History of the firearm" is the main article (for firearm history), but then goes on with many subsections of material that may or may not be in the other article. "Firearm" was created in September 2001, and "History of the firearm" was created in April 2007. "Firearm" is rated Top-importance to this project, but "History of the firearm" is unrated. Both have large blocks of text that lack inline citations. The whole scope is outside my general knowledge and interest. I don't want to touch them, but maybe one or more members of the project would be interested and better qualified than I? Or maybe the military history or technology projects? Lightbreather ( talk) 18:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This scope of this project now includes "political" topics such as organizations and legislation related to firearms. Many of the issues with those topics are distinct from those concerning the firearms themselves. Per discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Source discussion 2 and User talk:Rezin#Gun politics discussion from Mike's page, some editors think it would be beneficial to split out the political topics into a task force, which would function as a sub-project. The effect would be to remove those articles from the watchlist, etc, of the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms and allow interested editors to more easily focus on them. The hope is that this would spark new interest in improving politically related firearms articles, and lower the level of controversy on the remaining articles. One option is to make it a joint task force with Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, should those projects be interested. This proposal does not require any special approval from the overall WP community, but it should have a consensus of users at this project. Please give your views here. Rezin ( talk) 19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please visit the discussion here. The article has been nominated for GA-review, spawning a discussion whether the Military Factory website is a WP:RS. Opinions are welcome. Thanks MisterBee1966 ( talk) 08:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The technical stuff is not my forte. Could someone either A) create a Threaded barrel article, or B) add the information to Gun barrel? Thanks. Lightbreather ( talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, I have proposed merging Muzzle (firearms) into Gun barrel. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a consensus among active editors to create a "Gun Politics Task Force" as a sub-project of WikiProject Firearms. See Proposal: "Gun Politics Task Force". @ Scalhotrod: has reserved the page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Gun Politics Task Force. He has also researched other task forces which we can use as a template. The most important issue to consider is the scope of the task force, and hence which articles it will include. That scope won't be fixed forever: we just need a working definition to get started. To get the ball rolling, I'd propose we might say something like, "Topics encompassing organizations, legislation, regulations, political issues, and societal effects associated with firearms." How can we improve on that? Rezin ( talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
[62] I was WP:BOLD and moved Lee–Enfield from a hyphen to an ndash. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 11:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Enfields: can somebody indentify the rifle in these pictures so they don’t have to stay in the unidentified firearms category? Thanks in advance ✦ hugarheimur 02:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
All of the cartridge pages out there (e.g. 5.56×45mm NATO, 9×19mm Parabellum, and 7.62×39mm) have the "mm" next to the last digit of the cartridge name. However, 40 mm grenade, 10 mm caliber, and 125 mm smoothbore ammunition all have a space. I may have to self-revert a bunch of stuff because I've been operating under the assumption that "40 mm" means "40 millimeters" (as in "the ant walked 40 mm") whereas "40mm" means "40mm caliber" (as in "40mm grenade"). What's the dividing line here? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Schwarzlose M07/12 to be moved to Schwarzlose M.7. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we add something in the project guidelines about making sure that the caliber is generally fully designated (e.g. "9×19mm" or "9mm Luger" rather than just "9mm")? There are lots of articles with the caliber designated as something like "7.62 mm". We shouldn't make it incumbent upon the reader to follow a series of links to understand that an AKM, FAL, PPSh-41, and Dragunov all take different 7.62 mm ammunition. Likewise, mixing metric and imperial units gets ugly (e.g. "The armed forces of X use calibers 9×19mm, 5.56×45mm, 7.62×51mm, and .50 BMG"). IMO it's easier for the reader to understand if we keep things consistently metric or imperial when in a table. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is some edit dispute going on at Bushmaster M17S, so it would be greatly appreciated if an uninvolved party could swing by to help resolve the discord, and/or help to bring the article up to snuff. Thanks! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Draft:Gas-Checks in British RML Heavy Guns? Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).-- Lucas559 ( talk) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone in the Firearms project review the 156 entries in the Category:Deferred-Class Firearms articles and see which ones are really deferred and which ones belong in other classes?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed this at .22 Long Rifle & .22 Extra Long: somebody's systematically deleting all the capitals in caliber names, including .38 Special & .357 Magnum. Plus, somebody moved .22 Extra Long to .22 extra long... (I've moved it back...) I've never seen this in the sources; they all use caps. The rationale given is WP:MOSCAPS, which, I suggest, is contrary to what the sources all say in these cases. IMO, attention to this is needed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking for additional input (or consensus) on a discussion for creating a subcategory in Category:Firearms by caliber which would be for the articles 2 bore, 4 bore, 6 bore, 8 bore and Six bore, which I started because the cat was tagged at some point as a container cat (subcats only), apparently to subcategorize by caliber. Slivicon ( talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage of Grain is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
In June the United States government published this: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-03/pdf/2015-12844.pdf proposed change to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR were originally intended to control international distribution of military hardware. The proposed regulatory change may be intended to control distribution of information about improvised firearms. Crude firearms have long been assembled from parts not meeting US legal definitions of firearms. Materials science advances and expanded tool availability has improved opportunities for low-cost manufacturing techniques to construct more sophisticated firearms similar to those suitable for military use, and for which civilian manufacture, transfer, possession, and/or use may be legally restricted. Although the proposed regulations may have been intended to expand ITAR's regulatory reach to restrict distribution of instructions on how to manufacture improvised military firearms from materials not subject to weapons transfer limitations under previous regulatory definitions, concern has been expressed that the proposed expanded regulatory reach might be interpreted to apply to internet publication of information about a wider variety of subject matter related to other weaponry.
The comment period for the proposed regulatory change expired on 3 August 2015; and corresponding regulatory changes may now be implemented. Can someone recommend reliable sources for information about the ultimate fate of these proposed regulations? Thewellman ( talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I encountered this at Mauser MG 213: a metric case designation. I expect it's commonplace, so I wondered: is there a way to use the convert template to produce a metric designation without the "extra" unit? That is, not this: 9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at
Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Memorial plaque concerning whether or not to include an image of a memorial plaque for victims of criminal use in a firearm article. Thank you,
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In October 2011, it was suggested that " List of service rifles of national armies" be merged into " Service rifle". Members of this WikiProject are hence requested to follow up the merger proposal and conclude. This is long-pending. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ Gundisp}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Just an FYI but currently Template:WikiProject Firearms doesn't allow for draft, redirect, template or other classes so pages like Draft talk:Smith & Wesson Model 3913LS are currently hidden within the 950 or so pages at Category:NA-Class Firearms articles. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 Colorado Springs shooting to be moved to 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 San Bernardino shooting to be moved to San Bernardino shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 04:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting to be moved to 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2015 San Bernardino shooting to be moved to 2015 San Bernardino attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 04:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Defensive gun use to be moved to Defensive Gun Use in the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 06:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Personal armor to be moved to Body armor. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 08:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a clarification for section 1.2 Coaxial:
I believe that the article is confusing "coaxial gun" with "spotting gun."
Coaxial also means "planes intersecting in a straight line." [1] If the barrel of the gun is the z-axis then the x-axis plane and y-axis plane share the same line (the gun barrel going thru the origin 0,0) and, thus, are coaxial. In other words, the traverse and elevation share the same line. This is implemented by a large ball and socket joint with the gun barrel going thru the ball.
A coaxial machinegun can be mounted with the main armament in a turret or on the front or side of an armored vehicle.
72.197.193.4 (
talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Rick
References
On the talk page for "Equipment of the United States Armed Forces", I have posted a question addressing most if not all firearms articles. Specifically, what 'wars' to list and not list in the infobox. Looking for a centralized discussion there. See Talk:Equipment of the United States Armed Forces#"Wars" (infobox). Thanks - theWOLFchild 12:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we not list .38 Special as a chambering for every .357 Magnum gun? It is ambiguous if that gun is available in .357 Magnum and a .38 Special only chambering too. Yes, .38 Special can be used in .357 Magnum revolvers, but so can .38 Long Colt and .38 Short Colt but we don't have to list that. It's explained in the .357 Magnum article. Same goes for .44 Special and Magnum, .454 Casull, .460 S&W, .500 S&W, etc. -- Goldenbirdman ( talk) 23:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I was reading the article under the above title and was surprised to read "Men must wear the holster, magazine holders etc. in the belt at waist level". I have never seen any man at an IPSC match wear a utility belt at that height: Most men wear the utility belt at hip level. The waist is generally just above the navel, so men would have to have short arms to safely reach a pistol so holstered. ( 220.235.226.215 ( talk) 03:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC))
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting to be moved to 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Orlando nightclub shooting to be moved to 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 07:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. - Mr X 13:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Is was largely marketing stuff taken directly off their website, a product list that fell afoul of WP:NOTDIR, and some general OR observations. The article didn't even clearly state the founding date (1993) or that Louis Imperato founded it. So I did some tagging, removed marketing cruft, added a few basic sources, fixed some formatting, etc. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Munich shootings to be moved to 2016 Munich shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2016 Munich shooting to be moved to 2016 Munich shooting. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 07:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
See discussion here: Talk:SIG MCX#RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I've written an essay addressing the criminal use of firearms. WP:GUNCRIME. It related directly to the scope of this project. Where's the best place to include it? Felsic2 ( talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Felsic2, I think you should propose your essay for inclusion into the essay in this project. I think you may have some good points which could be included as gun writing principles, instead of argument, rebuttals, if the project team agree. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Thomas.W..." WP:GUNCRIME, or " User:Felsic2/Gun use" as the correct address is, isn't a serious WP essay but a POV-pushers' how-to-guide, hidden away in userspace to prevent others from editing it, and doesn't belong here. WP:GUNUSE is another redirect to the same page, so if you see any of those links posted somewhere it's just Felsic2's personal opinions, and not a page that carries any weight."-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I have some questions about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines.
I realize that some editors consider criminal use to be political content and so may prefer to avoid this discussion, but I hope someone involved in the project can reply. Felsic2 ( talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Criminal use I think is use of a gun in breaking a law, like killing people with a gun in a mass shooting, or in a theft. Users are people who use a gun, for military, civilian legal use or criminal use. CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What it says: The section says that criminal uses are allowed. However it sets restrictions on their inclusion: increased notoriety, sales, or legal restrictions. It says that criminal uses may only be included under certain circumstances. Events which don't meet those criteria are excluded. Not only are there no such criteria elsewhere on Wikipedia, even this Wikiproject doesn't use it for other material. This section says in forceful language that some facts are prohibited, no matter how well-sourced. As written, this section is a prima facie violation of the neutral point of view policy.
How it's used: On talk pages this section is treated as dogma to shut down conversations, as if it were adopted Wikipedia policy. They treat it as a done deal, with this section binding on article editing. For example: "Please stop adding this to the article. WP:GUNS#Criminal use is quite clear and the recent school shootings do not meet the criteria for inclusion." Or "We don't litter Wikipedia gun articles with that kind of trivia. Read the project guidelines. Criminal use is not noteworthy unless it greatly increased the gun's notoriety. There may be lots of news articles that tell which type of gun the killer used, but that doesn't mean anything. Cite a source explicitly saying that this incident greatly increased the Beretta CX4's notoriety or sales, otherwise the information is not notable and for that reason will continue to be removed." (There are many examples like this.) It's used the same way in edit summaries: "rv per WP:GUNS#Criminal use", "Reverted per the Firearms Project Guidelines", etc. This section is used as an excuse to prohibit material, with the asserted status of a policy. It's not used to include info.
Why it matters: This Wikiproject section is skewing the editorial content of Wikipedia. Firearms articles include lengthy, unsourced specifications of interest to enthusiasts alone. They exclude material of interest to general readers, such as famous cases in which guns was used. This section's requirements, and its use, violate core content and editing policies. They say articles should be constructed neutrally and that projects do not own topics or set policy.
What's the solution? : There are no other "criminal use" sections in other Wikipedia projects. It's unnecessary and misused. The simplest solution would be deleting it. Another solution would be having a general "users" section that sets neutral guidelines for all material about users, good or bad, cops or criminals. Another would be to set content-neutral parameters for users, such as quality sources that mention the topic, and suggestins on how to treat various uses. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The following is a recent edit to the Mini-14 page...
"Effects of criminal use
This is what I'm talking about. Now you can call it whatever you want. However, by any other name, it is still a body count.-- RAF910 ( talk) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the 4 examples you listed are 4 instances of notorious criminal use of the gun, and are to be stated in the Mini-14 page but written something like the example below, with a link to each of the 4 articles. I don't think the criminal facts are to be duplicated and repeated within the gun article, but do think the notoriety be listed so as to be comprehensive in an encyclopedia, else I think the article is deliberately negligent and censured and unintentionally glorifies the gun. The gun is not an isolated item, it is used in the world, and good and bad uses are described in an encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia stating notable facts, good and bad, more than a catalog. Much as I dislike the bad facts, or info and photos I dislike in other articles, I accept their existence in an encyclopedia, in gun articles, and the other articles.
Draft Example: "Notoriety: The Mini 14 was used in the: 1986 FBI Miami shootout, École Polytechnique Massacre, Byron_David_Smith_killings and Utoya mass shooting incidents." CuriousMind01 ( talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there an article that covers these different patterns of 7.62x51 rifles? I've looked at the articles individually and none seem to really explain the difference or showcase the fact that they may be incompatible. What we have is the AR10 article which states "These rifle differ from both the current and original Armalite AR10 in a few minor dimensions that make some the Armalite AR10B not as modular as the rest of the AR based firearms." Sephiroth storm ( talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
A user today moved Gun Politics in Switzerland to Gun Laws in Switzerland. Seems fine to me, what discussion of politics there is, is quite minimal. However, doing some poking around, There seems to be quite a lot of fragmentation in this area.
If you go to Category:Gun politics by country it's kind of a soup. Some articles are named Gun Politics, some are Gun Laws, and there's articles in the category, and articles as subcategories. As well, if you go to the main Gun politics page for the category - Overview of gun laws by nation There's a mishmash of different naming conventions among the main articles referenced, e.g.
Along with the expected bunch of 'Gun politics in' articles.
I would personally lead towards renaming all such articles as "Firearm law in", but since some countries have additional sets of rules for non-firearms, such as pellet guns, I think the original "Gun law in" is more appropriate, because no distinction needs to be made within the article if there are specific laws for non-firearms covered as well. The whole 'Firearm/Firearms', 'Law/Laws' thing adds further complication, as pretty much all are valid.
I also think that where appropriate, a separate 'Gun politics in' naming convention is fine, as in a separate Gun Politics in the United States, where the matter is contentious.
Thoughts? I'm not a member of the project so I may be missing relevant issues. As well I don't want to step on anyone's feet. Anastrophe ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Anastrophe, I would prefer to keep the discussion here. A template talk page is not an ideal place to talk about article naming and content. I would have brought it here sooner, but I didn't know what was the relevant WikiProject.
The simple fact is that none the articles
that were in the template are about gun politics except the United States one.
Felsic2 moved most of those articles to "Gun laws in..." yesterday with the edit summary, "covers laws rather than politics", but the same applies to the articles that weren't moved. "Gun politics", in the sense that we understand it, i.e the debate between "gun rights" and "gun control", does not seem to exist anywhere else in the world; if it does, it is not covered in those articles. Note that there isn't even a
Gun politics article: it redirects to
Overview of gun laws by nation.
Nick Cooper remarked in the discussion on the template talk page that "the problem overall is that many of the country pages seem to have taken the American original (created back in 2004, although the same editor also created the Australia and UK pages on the same date) as a model". And it shows. Firearms articles in several cases have an Americocentric cast. For instance, several articles talk of the right to "keep and bear arms" in the constitution – complete with wikilink – which is more a reflection of the American debate than a discussion of the constitutional basis of firearms legislation in the country concerned. Indeed,
Gun politics in Honduras has an entire section just to say that their constitution doesn't have a provision for the right to keep and bear arms.
Even the phrase "gun laws" is a particularly American one. You don't hear it in Europe, and I'm pretty sure you don't hear it in the Antipodes. "Legislation" is the word used in Wikipedia article names, not "laws". "Firearms" (or less often "firearm") is used in article naming except for a type of gun (Rheinmetall 120 mm gun) or a phrase (run and gun). This project is called Wikiproject Firearms (plural), not WikiProject Guns. All of those articles should be renamed to "Firearms legislation in...", as should the
Gun laws by country template and the
Firearm laws category. Naming an article "Firearms legislation in..." need not prevent discussion of pellet guns. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
As regards categories, all of the articles that were renamed yesterday have been taken out of
Category:Gun politics by country, but there are still subcats which are misnamed.
Category:Gun politics in Australia, for instance, contains articles on legislation and on shootings, but only one article on a political party. I don't know what the best category name would be, but it should be renamed and taken out of the Gun politics cat.
I think we have an opportunity to sort out this tangle now, and I think we should take it.
Scolaire (
talk) 08:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed Trigger finger (medical condition); would the medical use be the primary topic, or the firearms use? (we don't seem to have something listed for firearms at triggerfinger (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The SIG MCX page now has had added a "worst mass shooting" that is included under criminal use for the firearm, contrary to WP Firearm Criminal Use guidelines. An RFC on this has been posted on the talk page. You may comment there on whether or not this should be inserted into firearm articles. 16:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I added a request for comments in the Ruger Mini 154 talk page. I could not get the link to work here.
The title is: == Rfc: Add major incidents to Ruger Mini 14 Suggestion Comment WikiProject assessment Reply Comment ==
The RFC instruction said the Rfc notice could be added to a project page. Thank you, CuriousMind01 ( talk) 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Rfc: Add major incidents to article? (strangely, on my browser this doesn't link to the thread, just to the top of the talk page). Scolaire ( talk) 17:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
While Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use prohibits most inclusions, it does permit a few (a controversial stand, in my opinion). However it does not offer any advice on how to include the information or where. That's the main job of advice pages. Should it be written as prose in the "history" section? Should it be mixed in with other users in a bullet-pointed list? Should it be in a standalone section, and if so what's the best section heading? Some options include: "Notoriety", "Civilian users", "Usage", "Criminal users", "Service use", and "Incidents". Felsic2 ( talk) 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think not stating important facts is censorship.
@ DHeyward: @ Niteshift36: The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms# Criminal use says that some criminal uses are notable enough for inclusion. That issues isn't the topic of this thread, but people can say whatever they want. However it appears that both of you oppose the section as written. If so, it would seem that there's no consensus for its continued inclusion. I don't see anyone here or above defending it, explaining why it exists or how it came to be. Does anyone want to come to its defense? Felsic2 ( talk) 21:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The section outlines a few instances in which criminal uses may be included. No one on this page has supported the section's reason for existing and a few have opposed it explicitly. So it seems there's no longer a consensus for it. Unless anyine has anything to say in its defense, I'll go ahead and either delete it, or cut it down to say that the decision should be made article by article. Felsic2 ( talk) 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)