User talk:LWF

Archives

The AR-7 in popular culture

Hello LWF. I'm glad you're a shooter. (I was unsure of which page to post this)

According to 'pop culture' to quote Acceptable pop culture information should be highly notable, for example: the Walther PPK's use by James Bond. The pop cultural item that the firearm appeared in must represent the firearm realistically, and if named, should use the real name or a highly common nickname

I think this qualifies. Sadly not every Wikipedia reader is a firearms buff, but the reason for the pop culture is a reference to something they have seen in a film that they can find out about the real weapon; it's history, actual use, and limitations. (I used to own a Charter Arms one and from my iron sights experience with the weapon, 007 must have hit the SPECTRE crewman in the shoulder by aiming at his forehead)

Unlike something like a Luger, Winchester 73 on an M-1, there's not that many film appearances of the weapon. The Wikipedia links also refer to other items such as the novel, infrared scopes, (about as realistic as the rebreather in Thunderball) and other items.

I do hope this stays as the accompanying photo is rather attractive and shows a different perspective of the weaponFoofbun (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the acid test of notability is whether or not people will associate the firearm with its usage in the movie. The usual example is the Walther PPK, which when mentioned invariably triggers the response "James Bond's gun". I don't think the same applies for the AR-7.

Also, I should mention that even if the pop culture section were to be included in the article, the picture could not stay with it. This is not due to my personal feelings, but because of copyright laws. If you look at the images page, you will notice that it is a copyrighted image with a fair-use rationale. The fair-use rationale only allows it to be used in List of James Bond allies in From Russia with Love to depict Kerim Bey. In some circumstances a new fair-use rationale can be added to allow for an image's use in another article, but as there is already a picture of the AR-7 in its article, the rationale would almost certainly be rejected.

Finally, usually when I post a comment on a user's talk page I prefer to discuss it there, but since you posted a comment here I am fine as long as the bulk of the discussion happens here, or on talk:AR-7. Also, I doubt you intended this, but you posted your comment on both my user page and my user talk page, while it only should have gone on my talk page. Generally the user page is for one's own personal use to tell people about yourself. It wasn't something I mind greatly, but it is something you should be aware of.

Last but not least, you keep referring to the pop culture section disappearing without comment, but in my edit summaries I had made the comment "rv per WP:GUNS#Pop culture", so in fact a reason for the removal was being given.--LWF (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MORE on the AR-7

Hi LWF,

Thank you for your comments...I just finished writing a reply and my computer went wonky and they vanished.

I am very new to editing Wikipedia and I thank you for your courtesy and patience in explaining some things to me so I shall not make the same errors again. I am one of these people who only learn things by doing things and crashing my head into the wall.

I apologise for using your User page instead of the Talk Page, I was unsure of the difference and appreciate your courtesy. I shall not do that again.

I did not originally notice the "rv per WP:GUNS#Pop culture"; I probably did not know where to look for it.

I take on board your comments on the deletion of the image. I was under the impression (incorrectly) that once an image had been approved for use by Wikipedia it belonged to them and could be used to illustrate another article from a different aspect that would save the trouble of another image being submitted and approved. The reasons I submitted the photo was not only to add reader interest to the article but to show an image of an AR-7 with added attachments, namely the 'infrared' scope and suppressor. They probably were the first attachments ever used on the piece (yes I know I don't have a reference for that)

I strongly feel the article is necessary. Firstly as the majority of readers are probably not familiar with firearms, their first viewing of the weapon would be in a film, especially ones of such long standing popularity that are constantly rerun like the early Bond films.

Many things, whether firearms, or military organisations (Legion Etranger, American Marines, RCMP), foodstuffs (Spam) have a social history as strong as their actual one, though the two may not fit together in accuracy.

Secondly, how has a small caliber weapon gone from being viewed as something an outdoorsman can put place inside its own stock then put in a backpack in case he or she wants some bunny chow to a weapon percieved as a state of the art assassination weapon? Most people with firearms expertise, however limited, may question the use of a .22 as opposed to something more suitable, such as a folding stock .45 cal DeLisle carbine for a mission of retroactive family planning. That the weapon can be mentioned in a Paladin Press book and have such deliberate work put on the weapon (such as the article's theory that the spring was reconfigured to be unable to use subsonic ammunition, and the different threading of the AR-7 Explorer) means that the AR-7 does have the perception that I mentioned. I strongly feel it is from the Bond films. (I am also trying to gather proof that at least two other superspy movies had enemy henchmen using AR-7 recievers with sexy long barrels and stocks)

I have not been able to find detailed information of WHY the AR-7 was chosen for 'From Russia With Love' (as it doesn't appear in the novel) though no doubt once Eon had one in their armoury they reused it for 'Goldfinger'. This is unlike the detailed correspondence of why Ian Fleming chose a Walther PPK (when the real Geoffrey Boothroyd mentioned a list of suitable pistols, Fleming like the SOUND of it and gave the wrong holster as he liked the sound of that as well) or why the film poster Bond uses a Walther LP 53 air pistol (the prop PPK didn't arrive at the photo shoot, you can't photograph James Bond without a pistol as otherwise he looks like a surly waiter, the photographer was an air pistol shooter and had his piece in his car boot, and though the photographer suggested airbrushing out the long barrel as was done in US posters of the film, the original British poster artist loved the sexy phallic image of a long weapon and a leer)

To conclude, I feel that the pop culture reference is necessary for an understanding of the weapon from both the layman (who would be introduced to the acutal history and capability of the weapon) and the shooter (who wonders how the weapon received a reputation to be mentioned in a Paladin Press book or featured as the choice of a rancher revenging himself on the US Army)

I thank your for your help and advice and hope this comes out allright. I apologise for rattling on but I have a strong feeling on this (trivia makes the world go 'round)Foofbun (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind you rattling on. Frankly, it is rather refreshing, as the average person adding pop culture sections will justify it by screaming "it's notable" without citing a reason. And I don't mind that you've done things like accidentally posting the image, or posting on my user page, there's always a learning curve tho these things; now if I had reason to believe that you should or do know better, then I would be annoyed, but as we know, that isn't the case.

On the subject of the AR-7 and pop culture, I can see the point you are making, but we will need citations corroborating this. Also, if you haven't already found it, the edit summary comments are located under the tab at the top of each page labeled "history".

On the subject of the reasons for a variety of Fleming's actions, I had heard different reasons for the choices made by Fleming. I had heard that Boothroyd suggested a .38 Special revolver for Bond's concealed work, and a .357 Magnum for heavier duty stuff, but Fleming believed that a semi-automatic pistol would be a better choice for Bond. I had also heard that Boothroyd specified the particular holster, and Fleming didn't realize that he had recommended it for the revolvers, and that it wouldn't work with a semi-auto. After all, Fleming wasn't totally ignorant of firearms, as he had served in the Office of Strategic Services during WWII, even if all the raids he planned for the purpose of grabbing Enigma machines were total failures.--LWF (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LWF. I didn't know about the 'history' tab.

I'm afraid I couldn't post any footnotes for the statements on the film as they are rather obvious. Though as stated, I would put a reference if I could find one of WHY the AR-7 was chosen, like many things in the film, one of the producers or art directors no doubt saw it and wrote it into the script.

Yes, you heard right on Fleming; what I admire about him is that he actually took the trouble to seek the advice of an actual expert (I've just finished a brief article on the real Mr. Boothroyd that I hope someone will expand) and later reproduced the correspondence. Like a lot of other people in the military he probably only knew what he was trained on. (if a wartime RNR commissioned officer posted in London would ever have had weapons training).

It's rather sad that in the old days an author would invent a fiction private eye, superspy, or supercommando, now people come up with 'true accounts' that their imagination actually had a basis in reality. You can discover after a few paragraphs the total lack of knowledge of the author and I'm glad there isn't a weapons editor correcting them.

I thank you for your kind words and encouragement. Since discovering the internet I have agreed with a friend who has called it the encylopedia of the instantaneous; so many deserving individuals and facts are unknown as they happened before the Internet and those after (this is you Ms. Spears and your ilk) have too much detail. I found the article on the AR-7 (as with many other weapons articles in Wikipedia) very well written Foofbun (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the very least, some of the references will have to be trimmed from the pop culture section, just for example, the one about Bond's Aston-Martin hasn't had the same impact as the others. Also, since this it is the entry on the AR-7, and not James Bond, we should trim some of the plot details from the first James Bond portion, as acceptable pop culture is generally prose written on how the appearance affected the firearm, see Webley revolver#Cultural influence for a good example of a properly written pop culture kind of section. The part on Goldfinger can probably go as the AR-7 was only seen very briefly, and it is unlikely it had much of an effect on the AR-7. In my opinion the section would be best if rewritten to read more like this,

As opposed to the original hunting and survival weapon envisioned by its creators, the .22 calibre AR-7 was used as an assassination weapon in several films, such as the James Bond movie From Russia with Love where it is used to assassinate a Soviet agent. This and other films have even led to it being recommended as an assassination weapon in the controversial book, Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors.

--LWF (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and accept it on the Aston Martin LWF (though it does fill out the paragraph). I would still put the Goldfinger reference in as the weapon was reused, and by a female as well. As I stated about my own experience with the weapon, the film features Tilly Masterson's shot at Mr Goldfinger so far off the mark that it nearly hits Bond. I also would include the brief reference to Rage (I've fond memories of a 'National Lampoon' mock contest seeking readers votes to determine 'Who is Angrier? George C. Scott vs Kirk Douglas' with quotes from their films) The point is that the weapon has gone from a survival weapon, to a precision assassination weapon (with a too highly effective infrared scope and suppressor you can fit in your pocket) to a weapon of choice to a rancher (would a standard lever action rifle appear too cowboy/redneck to Hollywood?) revenging himself on the US Army. There is also Chuckles Bronson in a film I'm not sure of the name of ('Violent City'? my brain cells are voting with their feet) using one to shoot the tyre of someone in his way and he fits the weapon into a picnic basket that I did not mention.

To summarise, please leave in the 'Goldfinger' reference as it is very well known and the 'Rage' reference as it is also known and ridiculous. Thank youFoofbun (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, I deleted the portion where it talks about the AR-7 not being in the novel, since that has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of effect had on the AR-7 by the appearances. I also condensed the two Bond appearances into one paragraph. Although the section could still be improved, because sections like that are supposed to be prose about the effects on the firearm from the appearance, not a list of appearances.--LWF (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I included the mention of the attachments added to the weapon that is clearly visible in the film and on stills. I didn't want to get into a checklist of every film that featured the weapon (though there are very few; it wouldn't take much space, much like the Reising Gun (that Jack Hawkins calls the REISLING in 'The Planters Wife'/'Outpost in Malaya') I'm unsure what you mean about 'prose about the effects on the firearm from the appearance'. I've mentioned the uses briefly. I mentioned the novel so the reader can see it was purely in the film and the 'walking stick' reference may set off a new article as there have been walking stick weapons since the 19th century.Foofbun (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clip vs. Magazine

LWF, I was wondering if you could chime in on the debate regarding the definition of a clip vs. a Magazine. I am looking for other firearms folks. There's an editor taking the position that Clips are Magazines and citing the Dictionary. Thanks for your help. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd noticed the debate. I've got the Oxford Dictionary of Current English right in front of me, and its definition certainly reflects proper firearms terminology. I'll be right over.--LWF (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks. I noticed that I got caught up in buying a car and didn't proofread my entry here. Forgot to point you to the talk page. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the reversions to my user page, I had the vandal blocked. Thanks again.--Finalnight (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to be of service.--LWF (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate undoing of an edit objection

I'd just like to object to your removal of the trivia section from the M1911 page, done exactly one minute after I had posted that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bane II (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:GUNS#Pop culture, and WP:MILMOS#POP. They both quite clearly state that information like that you posted is not notable in the firearm's article. For it to be notable, it has to be shown to have had an effect on the firearm, for example, how the Walther PPK was affected by its use by James Bond.--LWF (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M1

was the M1 you fired a Garand or a Carbine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe la pepper (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Garand. Very nice firearm: excellent balance of weight, neither front nor rear heavy; and it points very naturally.--LWF (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership request

Can you register me for Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms as hunting firearms "corespondent" or whatever the title may be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonisRugitur (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to have me add you to the list of members. You can do that yourself, as no permission is necessary to join the project. Just be sure to add your name in alphabetical order.--LWF (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Resolution

Hello LWF, for the past several days, Nukes4Tots and I have been having a back and forth over a merged article and no resolution can be agreed upon. Since it seems we've reached a loggerhead, I was hoping some sort of authoritative voice can finally put this discussion to rest. Last week I had begun writing an article on the QBZ-56C (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QBZ-56C&oldid=235844830), a modified carbine variant of the Type 56 assault rifle after reading the Wikiproject Firearms section on variants, that stated if there had been a significant difference in both the overall design and design history a carbine (such as the M4) could merit a seperate article. The article was quickly merged with the Type 56 article by Nukes4Tots. Soon both Nukes4Tots and I discussed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Type_56_assault_rifle) whether the merger was called for, we both aired our concerns but apart from Mike Searson 'leaning toward' a seperate article, no real resolution has been agreed upon, and this matter has been left hanging for several days. So I was hoping for your take on the matter. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time to look into the discussion more thoroughly. I had noticed your discussion, but had only given it a cursory glance, as I have been quite a bit busier lately than usual.--LWF (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LWF, no need to rush though, its just one of those nagging problems that been on the back of my mind for the past couple of days, once again, thanks for your help. Semi-Lobster (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation accusation

It appears that somebody had attacked the Walker Colt Article in ref: a copyright violation. This accusation is spurious as the article is well sourced and the alleged violation is a publishers blurb from my own book, Percussion Pistols and Revolvers, History, Performance and Practical Use. The Walker Article is rather good and should not be destroyed because of whatever (remove inflamatory word mc) motivates the complainant.--Mcumpston (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I note that the subject who positied a copywrite violation on the walker article also reversed images I had place under the Tannerite Article and the one title Boar. I believe the inclusion of a picture of a hunter with a feral hog brough me to his attention and inflamed him in some manner causing him to research my articles and begin deleting material. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2/Proposed_decision--Mcumpston (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)--Mcumpston (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]