Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
Flag of the United States.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
Flag of Germany.svg      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
Flag of France.svg      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
Flag of Italy.svg      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco / Armi
Flag of Poland.svg      Dyskusje:        Militaria / Broń
Flag of Russia.svg      Обсуждения:   Военная история

Source discussion[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

Site name/site url[edit]

  • Home page & About us
  • Use on Wikipedia
  • Previous discussions
  • Special notes
Discussion:
Outcome:

Common outcomes[edit]

  • Unreliable SPS
  • Reliable SPS because:
    • Field of expertise
    • Note: Even SPSes permitted because the writer is an expert on the topic are still not allowed for info about BLPs.
  • Looks like an SPS but isn't because:
  • Generally unreliable SPS but certain pages are reliable for listed reasons
  • Dubious source, use only with attribution

Modern Firearms world.guns.ru[edit]

Discussion

Archived discussion [2]

Outcome
  • Reliable SPS because: Maxim Popenker, the author and webmaster, has written books issued by reputable publishers on these topics:
    • machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles, combat pistols, WWII guns

Gunblast.com[edit]

Discussion:

Archived discussion [4]

Outcome:

Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the main author Jeff Quinn.

HKPRO/ hkpro.com[edit]

Discussion:

Archive discussion [6]

Outcome:

Unreliable because it is an anonymous website with no claims of expertise and no editorial review.

Status

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)

Military Guns & Ammunition quarryhs.co.uk[edit]

Discussion:

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)

Outcome

Reliable SPS because the author is a published expert.

Remtek remtek.com[edit]

Discussion:

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)

Working through the citations, I see at least one, Machine pistol, to an article by Walt Rauch.[12] While he has self-published a book, he's also written for several gun magazines[13][14] and so would qualify for the SPS exemption. Rezin (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Reprints of published articles are presumably reliable. Self-published articles with no provenance are probably not reliable.

Status

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)

Reload Bench reloadbench.com[edit]

Discussion:

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)

Agreed! Might as well use COTW.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Status

I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Box 'O Truth theboxotruth.com[edit]

Discussion:

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)

Outcome:

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Status

I've put the SPS tag on all the citations to this source. Rezin (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Gun Zone gunzone.com[edit]

Discussion:

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)

It's a glorified blog, unreliable. We can do better than this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Speir's credentials are similar to Quinn's, if not better. Both sites are blogs. What difference do you see? Rezin (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Any other input? Otherwise I'd conclude this is "Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the main author". Rezin (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there's a reason why no reputable journal has hired him over the past 2 decades.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. Is there a substantive reason to question Speir's expertise? Rezin (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
My bias may be personal, I'll keep out of this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster Dean Speir, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.

Guns and Shooting Online chuckhawks.com[edit]

Discussion:

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)

If no one here has an opinion I might post at the relable sources noticeboard to get more input. This source is used a lot so it's important to make an accurate determination. Rezin (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"Guns And Shooting Online" chuckhawks.com Rezin (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion has now been archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182#"Guns And Shooting Online" chuckhawks.com. It received two replies from a regular editor and one reply from an IP editor whose opinions I don't trust. The regular editor seemed to indicate that the site is borderline allowable for both Hawks' own writing and for those of other contributors. The discussion is partly dependent on WP:WORKINPROGRESS, which is perhaps a subsidiary of WP:IAR. It derives evidence that the site is cited in published books, which implies it has a reputation for reliability, even thought from what I can tell discussion on policy talk pages have rejected previous citations as proof of reliability. Perhaps the best conclusion at this time may be to say that the site is marginally reliable, should be replaced where possible, and should not be used for contentious claims. That would allow us to keep all the existing citations unless they're challenged, and spare a lot of effort and disruption. Rezin (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

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)

Sniper Central snipercentral.com[edit]

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)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Cruffler cruffler.com[edit]

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)

Agreed, definitely SPS--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Internet Movie Firearms Database imfdb.org[edit]

Discussion
  • WP:USERGENERATED applies in this case. The IMFDB appears to be an open wiki, one which relies mostly on visual identification rather than printed sources. One editor on WP described it as reliable, but they were speaking generally and not in reference to site policies. More editors have described it as unreliable. It's questionable whether it is allowable in external links, per WP:EL, but that's another matter. In conclusion, the source does not appear to meet WP's reliability standards. Rezin (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As one of the managers of IMFDB, if I may toss in my two cents. Rezin is correct for 95% of the content on IMFDB. It is an open source wiki and anyone can edit it. We do strive to be as correct as possible of course. I am not well enough versed in Wikipedia's policies to know whether it is to be considered a reliable source. But let me add this. At least a dozen of the main contributors to the site are movie armorers, and are the individuals who actually provided the weapons for the movie. For example, if one were to look at the page for Die Hard... On the site we have an image of the actual gun that was held by Bruce WIllis in the film. Not a similar version but the exact one he handled. This is because the person who contributed that image and most of the content on that page, was the armorer for the movie. Just food for thought. As I am obviosuly biased I am going to abstain for advocating one way or the other, but I hope that I can help shed some light on the site and answer any questions. If anyone does has more questions about IMFDB and how it works, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. I would love to contribute whatever I can to a constructive conversation, whatever the end outcome. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that input. FWIW, the prohibition on open wikis at WP:USERGENERATED includes this clause: "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." If the material is labeled correctly and the member's credentials are linked to it, then that material should be acceptable. I don't think the distinction between editorial staff and users in that guideline is of practical use - WP, for instance, doesn't have an "editorial staff". Rezin (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zackmann08: By any chance, is there a list of "credentialed" editors at IMFDB? Part of the reason for this review is to make it easier for editors to know which sources can be relied upon, so a 'cheat sheet' of experts on that site would help. If not, don't worry- the fall back position would be for those who want to use a reference to establish its reliability on a case-by-case basis. Rezin (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

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.

Six Guns sixguns.com[edit]

Discussion

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)

none of whom have the same reputation as Taffin...I take offense to that! Just kidding, my sole contribution on there was not a very technical piece, nor was it meant to be, that's the nature of many of his "guests" I suppose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No offense intended - I hadn't even noticed your name. It's just that very few writers have a reputation as high as Taffin's. Yet. ;) Rezin (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Reliable when posting articles by previously published experts, including the webmaster John Taffin, when they are writing within their fields of expertise.

Forgotten weapons forgottenweapons.com[edit]

Discussion

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)

The point of that website is to focus on obscure firearms. They may be the only immediately accessible source for certain vial statistics such as dimensions. Is it better to use a self published source or to copy from it and not cite anything? (Not a rhetorical question.) Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree this is an important question. We brushed the topic in the Sources discussion at the top of this page, but it might be a good idea to discuss it again since Rezin has given us a good list of examples to assess the impact of answer. Thewellman (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Since these points go beyond this one website, let's discuss them in a separate thread. I'll start one below. Rezin (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this website, I did some more digging and found that the webmaster and principal author is Ian McCollum. Checking Google Books and Amazon, I can't find any books. Checking regular Google, I can't find any other publications for which he's written. He does appear on many podcasts, but that's not a factor. The most official (though probably still self-provided) biography is on this page: [37]. Here's a more casual one: [38]. But the 'expert exemption' from the prohibition on self-published sources requires that the author have been previously published in a reliable 3rd-party source, and I don't see that in this case.
If there are specific facts that are so important they're worth doing some extra work, I'd suggest contacting the webmaster/author and asking him for the original source of his information. It's quite possible that it comes from a published source - he lists some in a bibliography.[39] Once you've obtained that source, you can cite it directly. Rezin (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The more I looked into this the more I've grown to like McCollum. The webmaster/author brings a wonderful enthusiasm to his efforts. I expect that one of these days he'll get published in a reliable source and then his credentials will be established. But until then he unfortunately does not seem to qualify as an expert for WP purposes, and so his self-published website does not qualify as reliable. Rezin (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert. May change if the author becomes a published expert.

Carbines For Collectors carbinesforcollectors.com[edit]

Discussion

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)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by non-experts.

6mmBR.com/AccurateShooter.com[edit]

Discussion

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)

Outcome

Reliable source due to the appearance of strong editorial oversight.

Terminal Ballistics Research ballisticstudies.com[edit]

Discussion

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)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Bangladesh Military Forces bdmilitary.com[edit]

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)

Outcome

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.

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News ammoland.com[edit]

Discussion

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)

Outcome

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.

Security Arms securityarms.com[edit]

  • Note: this is a favorite site of Jetway/Ctway/Ose\fio, who has repeatedly copied text from it into WP, and who may have been active on its forum.
Discussion

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)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert and/or it contains user-submitted material without sufficient editorial review.

Fr. Frog frfrogspad.com[edit]

Discussion

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)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Soldier Systems soldiersystems.net[edit]

Discussion

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)

Soldier Systems is an industry daily which is published online. Its traffic stats can be found here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Not enough information to determine reliability.

Military Today military-today.com[edit]

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)

Outcome

Unreliable because it's a self-published source by a non-expert.

Copyright violations?[edit]

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)

Copyrighted material in articles is a problem everywhere. There's been a sockpuppet army copying material into firearms articles from other websites for years. I looked up that one and see that the material was added to a different article way back in 2006[56], then moved to the gun law article when it was created. The editors don't look like sockpuppets, so this probably isn't part of that problem. But we always have to be on the watch for copied material. Rezin (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-automatic firearms articles quality and importance[edit]

I changed the class and importance of these articles today: Semi-automatic firearm[57] Semi-automatic pistol[58] Semi-automatic rifle[59] Semi-automatic shotgun[60]

... based on this project's Quality and Importance scales. Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: "Gun Politics Task Force"[edit]

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)

  • Support - I support the concept of separating the regulatory aspects of firearms use from the technical aspects of firearms construction and operation. Perhaps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force might serve as a model for a separate subgrouping. Thewellman (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thewellman, that's a great suggestion. I too support this effort. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support here. While an understanding of firearms technology is vital to understanding firearms law and politics, it's also important to know law and politics in general. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rezin: So it looks like we have a consensus...how do we move forward? Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks to everyone who participated. @Scalhotrod: has put some effort into thinking about how to create this task force, so it'd be best for him to take the lead. I'll start a fresh thread below for discussion about how to proceed now that we've agreed on its creation. Rezin (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As one of the founders of [61] GSL, I can see how this could be beneficial in a number of ways. I'm no expert on the technical side of firearms, but I do have some experience and knowledge within the realm of what could be considered "gun politics". The main issue in most of these types of articles seems polemic in nature, and being able to find and acheive a WP:Balance within these articles. Often, diffusing differences of opinion between the two sides can be quite daunting and takes time and trust between editors. I've had the privilege of getting to know and work with some of the folks on both side of the aisle on WP and feel I could be of some use in these matters. Darknipples (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cautious support. Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems with History of the firearm and Firearm#History[edit]

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)

Thanks for noticing that. The project importance ratings aren't of much importance. Regardless of that, both articles are important. In a perfect Wikipedia world, the history material in the "Firearms" article would simply be a summary of the "History" article. But as you've discovered, things are more complicated. One strategy would be to fold anything that not already there into the "History" article, make other improvements to that article (including citing where appropriate), and then create a fresh summary for the "Firearms" article. I can do part of that work. Rezin (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be great. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

MP 40 and referencing Military Factory website[edit]

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)

I've posted a review of the source there. Rezin (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The article just underwent a massive overhaul. Any editors familiar with or interested in WWII weapons may want to check it for completeness and accuracy. Rezin (talk)
Thanks for your help on this MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun Politics Task Force: creation process[edit]

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)

Request for "Threaded barrel" article or update[edit]

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)

  • Threaded barrel may be an ambiguous term, since many barrels are threaded at the chamber end for attachment to the receiver. Perhaps threaded muzzle would be a more appropriate term, or we might want to keep the muzzle (firearms) article separate to include description of attachment mechanisms for such items as a front sight, sling, bipod, bayonet, flash suppressor, or silencer. Thewellman (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)