|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AK-47 article.|
|AK-47 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 22, 2006.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Threads older than 60 days may be archived by.|
About the article's name again
AK-47 was never entered service because it was just a prototype for the competition. The final version entered service in 1949 and was called 7.62mm avtomat Kalashnikova or just AK, not AK-47. You can't find "AK-47" mentioned in the weapons manuals and it wasn't called so even unofficially in the Soviet/Russian military forces. In other words, it's just wrong and the fact that "well, people widely use it" doesn't make any difference, though we could, no, must mention it in the article instead of spreading another misconception. Insjke (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Calling AKM "another version of AK-47" is like calling "M16A3" "another version of M16A1". M4 is also based M16, but it's not M16. People say it, but does it make them right? Russian wikipedia article uses the right name - AK 7.62. Officially, there were about 2000 AK-47 produced for field tests in 1947, but mass production of AK (7.62) began in 1949, and by that time it was modified version of AK-47, and the official name didn't have any numbers in it (47 was like "test index" if you can call it that way). It was simply AK 7.62 (type 1949, and later types). Then there is AKM (1959), which isn't based on the failed field test AK-47, but on later versions of AK 7.62. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove problem sentence
I recommend that we remove the last sentence from the first paragraph (please see below in bold)...This sentence is not necessarily and is the source of repeated edit reverts. Specifically, editors are changing "AK-74" to "AK-47"
The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash. No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74........--RAF910 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely should be removed.--Dmol (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- The information within the sentence is encyclopedic. It's also part of the reason why I tried to go in more detail with my first version.
- People just don't believe that AK can go without 47 in the russian nomenclature.
- I'd suggest to add a small section in the "history" part of the article if this is too long for the headline.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You are confusing two different issues.
The first issue, is renaming the article to Avtomat Kalashnikova because some editors believe there is no such thing as an AK-47. Despite the fact that this is the English language page...despite the fact that Wiki common name policy applies...and despite the fact that the manufacture itself calls the gun AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml).
The second issue, the second and third sentences in this article clearly states "It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash." And, that the next sentence "No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74." is needlessly causing confusion and resulting in unnecessary edit reverts. In fact, it has already been reverted once more while this discussion has been taking place. Also, there is simply no reason to restate this info over and over again.
In the English speaking world, this rifle is called the AK-47, manufacture itself calls it the AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml), and 100 years from now it will still be called the AK-47. There is nothing that Wikipedia can do to change this simple fact, no matter how hard some editors may wish it so.--RAF910 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- -I don't see the problem with going into more detail about the name, or more exacly what the name wasn't for russians. If anything the confusion caused by this sentence proves that more precision is needed for people to understand.
- The manufacture started to call it AK-47 fairly recently, on its English website, due precisely to the influence of the English speaking world (read: customers)
- I'd even say that it's quite an interesting issue in the field of linguistics on how what was first an error in "translation" (since the AK-47 for the russians was a prototype) became the normal name in English and then got to influence the original. And I think that the etymology of the name is something that has its place in an encyclopedia.
- You'll also notice that maybe because the issue of the name is never tackled in the article, we don't have a mention of the names of the prototypes (AK-46, 47, 48). As these would be even more confusing for an English speaker without a bit of explanation. Telling someone that the AK-47 was a prototype for the AK-47 would be just weird, especially if you go on to say there was an AK-48 afterwards --188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, the article already states "It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash." The following sentence "No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74." is needlessly causing confusion and resulting in unnecessary edit reverts.
The interesting linguistic translation is nonsense an irrelevant to the article. It is trivial information that is obviously confusing the reader. And, placed in the article and as you insinuated above as an off-hand slap at English speakers for not being smart enough to know what it's called in Russian.--RAF910 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm open for suggestions on how you'd name the various prototypes (and that's not trivial for this article and needs to be done at some point) without adressing the issue of having homonyms.
- Sure you can avoid mentioning them, but isn't it the purpose of an encyclopedia to give information?
- I don't see where you got the idea that etymology is irrelevant. And having information that confuses the reader means it needs clarification, not deletion. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is absolute proof to just how confusing this one sentence is...Again, the article already states "It is officially known in the Soviet documentation as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Автомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash." The following sentence "No number was present in the Soviet military nomenclature for Kalashnikov's assault rifles until the adoption of the AK-74." is needlessly causing confusion and resulting in unnecessary edit reverts. Please note, that nowhere in the sentence in question is the word prototype used...yet we now have editors (see above) that have somehow read prototype into the sentence. Also, the sentence is unreferenced and inaccurate as the manufacture itself calls it the rifle the AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml).--RAF910 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The word prototype was present in this version:
- For some reason you had problems with it, so I changed it to the current version that you didn't at the time dispute.
- So for the x-th time, I've got no problem with changing this sentence as it's demontrably confusing, but rather that deleting it I find preferable to expand on the informations that I mentionned.
- And when did the manufacturer (or rather what's left of it after it's 2012 bankrupcy) become the Soviet army? I'd like to see any document from the USSR that refers by AK-47 to anything but a prototype. Also no need to repeat ad nauseam the same couple of sentences, it adds nothing to the discussion.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
AK-47 is the common name for this rifle. It is so common that the manufacture itself calls it the AK-47 (see http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/akm.shtml). Now you are claiming that the manufacture is not a reliable source information as to the name of the products that they make and sell. Clearly, you are a POV pusher and I will no longer entertain you. I will now delete the sentence in question--RAF910 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- We're talking from the historical perspective here. If some marketing genius decides tomorrow that the product should be called cheese sandwich instead of AK-47 it has no bearing on the past.
- And when did I say that AK-47 isn't the common name for this gun? I said there are prototypes reffered to by homonyms to AK-47, and there needs to be some explanation on the context of Soviet nomenclature in order to not cause confusion on the matter.
- I'll add back the sentence in question. Now we can go play the good ol' edition war or wait and see what the rest of the community has to say about it.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Provisional IRA
- O'Brien, Brendan (1 September 2014). O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA. O'Brien Press, Limited. pp. 145–. ISBN 978-1-84717-727-8.
- Moloney, Ed (1 November 2003). "Prologue". A Secret History of the IRA. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-32502-7.
- O'Brien, Brendan (1993). The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Féin, 1985 to Today. Syracuse University Press. pp. 279–. ISBN 978-0-8156-0319-1.
This entry was deleted with the edit summary, "rvt: there are too many non-state users to list, start a new article if notable". I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. I only added a single entry, one which is very notable and very well sourced. There is no limit on space in the article and no one seems to mind allocating space to much less notable users, such as Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Sao Tome and Principe, often based on much less reliable sources:
If there's a proposal to move all users to a separate article, that might be sensible. But to discriminate against some users based on their status, regardless of the number or quality of sources, seems like a violation of WP:NPOV. BTW, I've looked through article talk pages and project talk pages, and I can't find any place where this rule was discussed. Please let me know what I'm missing. Rezin (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are guidelines for article length, and yes, there is a limit when an article becomes unmanageable, both from the technical and reliability points. Current length is 100k, which is significant. Lists are hard to maintain, because there are constant attempts by new users to update them (history shows), and better move to separate articles. I expect the number of non-state users to be much larger than that of state users, no slight to IRA and your sources. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so we can move all the users to a separate page. AK-47 users Any objection to that solution? While there may be numerous non-state users, I doubt very many of them are notable and can be verified with reliable source. Another solution would be to trim the poorly sourced state users. A third solution is to split out another block of information such as "History" or "Variants", either either of which could stand alone. There are many solutions that are better than deleting well-sourced information whose inclusion is mandated by NPOV. Rezin (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) There is this usual problem: we can argue which source is reliable (and many new additions are simply unsourced), but often not which user is notable, because of lacking guidelines, i.e. we have potential edit wars. I'd strongly prefer to move the entire list (states and non-states) into a daughter article - this list has been an eternal pain anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. I bet this list accounts for more vandalism and bad editing than the rest of the article combined. Moving the users to a standalone list may make it less of a target. Since this is such a prominent article, I'll post a split tag so we can do this as a formal proposal. Rezin (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Split "Users" to "List of AK-47 users"
The article is very long. The "Users" section is a frequent target of vandalism and poor quality edits. The readability and stability of the article would be improved by splitting the "Users" section into a standalone article. Doing so would also allow us to add more information about the dates, quantities, sources, etc., of the uses. The material is all sourced and there are similar lists already in existence. Rezin (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)