Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rezin (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 30 January 2015 (→‎Sources: try it out). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

WikiProject iconFirearms NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
  Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco / Armi
      Dyskusje:        Militaria / Broń
      Обсуждения:   Военная история

Sources

Two sourcing questions for project experts:

In the debate over terminal ballistics, the work of Marshall and Sanow has been impeached by FirearmsTactical.com[1], who make arguments that many people respect. The authors or editors of the publication don't seem to be listed anywhere, and I can't tell whether it's a reliable source for articles here. Does anyone know more?

I see a lot of articles that are mostly based on what look like one-person websites. Does Wikipedia:self-published source apply to those? Rezin (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No response here, so I opened a thread at one article for openers. Talk:6.5mm_Grendel#Self-published_sources Let me know if there's a better way to proceed. Rezin (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Talk:Remington Model 1858. Rezin (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thefirearmblog.com is written and published by Steve Johnson, so it appears to be self-published. It's used in many articles.[2] Does anyone know if Johnson is a recognized and expert in some field? If not, then it probably needs to be removed too. Rezin (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the writers at TFB are experts. It's more like a web magazine than a "blog" really, despite the name. I'd say it's as reliable as any gun magazine, which is to say, you have to consider the author of the particular article, the claims being presented, and the nature of the article. Like any magazine there's opinion pieces and opinion claims that shouldn't be cited inappropriately. Gigs (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. I'm not sure how we know that "Nathaniel F"[3] or "Alex C." (to pick the first two on the main page) are published experts.[4] What about the owner, Steve Johnson? Does he have a reputation as a published expert? Rezin (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sightm1911.com/ doesn't have an "about" page, but a number of pages use the first person singular, like "contact me" or "... other stuff that I can’t think of another place for", which leads me to believe it is a one person operation. It does carry reviews and articles written by others, but they're sometimes identified only by nicknames. Reprints from previously published articles would be fine, though there may be copyright issues. Does anyone know more about this site and whether it'd qualify as a reliable source? Rezin (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sightm1911 is a harder case. The author looks like he might be an expert, but as long as he's anonymous, it's hard to really say. Gigs (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid of that. Rezin (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of reading articles I've compiled a list of apparently self-published sources which has grown quite long. Also, I found this template: [self-published source?]. Rather than laboriously starting talk page discussions on each one, it seems like it'd be more efficient to use the template to mark the sources, and then follow up at a later date by deleting any that haven't been fixed. Any objections or better ideas? Rezin (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit unclear on your intention. Are you proposing to delete the citation of a self-published source or delete the article content covered by that reference citation? Thewellman (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends. The bad source citation could be replaced with a [citation needed] template in most cases. If it says "The K7 is the finest 9mm on the market", then maybe it'd be better to just delete the content too. What do you think would be the best way to fix the problem? Rezin (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree replacement with a citation needed template might be appropriate in many cases. Removal of article content should include talk page discussion. Focused discussion can be initiated by "temporarily" removing questionable content to the talk page rather than deleting it. Deciding exactly how much text content is covered by the self-published source may be difficult. Does the self-published inline template have this option of highlighting the content in question?[citation needed] If not, could initial placement of the self published source template follow this citation needed template for clarity? Thewellman (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be one extra step to leave a note on the talk page saying something like, "Source X appears to be inappropriate because it may be self-published and the author may not be a published expert. The citation, and any material that is derived from it, may be deleted. If you have any information showing that the source is in fact suitable for Wikipedia, please add it here. If you can find a replacement source, please add it to the article." I might be able to automate some of this with one of the special editing programs.
I agree that deciding which unsourced text should be removed is more complicated, but that's the same question faced routinely. There must be thousands of articles in this project tagged for a lack of sources. Tackling those would be a much larger effort. For now, I'm just looking at reducing the reliance on all these one-person hobbyist websites. We can't build great articles on poor foundations. Rezin (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example: [5] and Talk:Wonder_Nine#Sources. Rezin (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm still working on this. However I realize that many of these SPSes are used on multiple pages so having multiple discussions would duplicate effort. It seems like a better process would be to use inline citations on the articles accompanied with talk page postings that point to this page or some other central discussion page. There, we can list all the suspected invalid sources and work through them methodically. Instead of taking over this page, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to create a new, ad hoc project page for the purpose. 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms/Sources', or something like that. Rezin (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a daunting task, but I try to work away at some of them when I get time between paid writing jobs. We're all volunteers here, so I just suggest improving th eones where your personal expertise or interest lies and staying in that group. I try to delete SPS when I can and use reliable sources in their stead, granted it often means wiping out a great deal of text, but I'd prefer no information to poor information.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See #Source discussion below. I've started this process, creating a structure which I hope will bring in the objective information to help us sort through which sources are reliable and which aren't. Any suggestions on how to improve it? Since it will quickly grow very long, maybe it should be moved to a separate page. Rezin (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Source discussion" subsections: those reviews require frank assessments of sources and in some cases the people who created them. However I don't know that we need to keep those discussions where search engines will pick them up. So my plan is to delete the discussion block of older entries and replace it with a link to the history. Everything else, including the "outcome", will stay on the page. Does anyone see a problem with that? Am I being over-sensitive? Rezin (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead with this. We can undo it if it's counterproductive. Rezin (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "proprietary cartridges"

We have some ammo articles that call something a "proprietary cartridge". I've recently come to learn that most of these merely have a trademark on their name, there's nothing else proprietary about them. It doesn't seem like the patent office is issuing patents on ammo that isn't radically different from what's been around since smokeless powder was invented. As with most things firearms, "it's all been done before".

As an example, .300 Whisper was "proprietary"... that is until a completely unrelated party just sent the specs to SAAMI and changed the name to something not trademarked.

Should we use this term on anything not listed by CIP or SAAMI? I feel like we are misleading our readers a little, implying that there is more intellectual protection for these cartridges than really exists. Gigs (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but what is the "problem" that we are fixing by making this change? I think its OK to associate a particular cartridge with a particular company if they are known for introducing it (ex. Winchester and .44-40). Is there a serious problem where the average, non-gun informed, reader is being mislead? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking 300 whisper and 300 blackout are not identical. Its a somewhat similar situation to .223 and 5.56. There are both neck length and pressure differences. In any case proprietary is correct. They personally maintain the spec and manufacture the rounds. That doesn't necessarily mean its exclusive (anyone can handload) but in this specific case 300 whisper is a trademark of SSK, so proprietary definitely applies. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little different than .223/5.56 because on the wildcat side you are dealing with a lack of standardization. The concern is similar though, that a maximum length, maximum pressure 300 Blackout round might jam the bullet into the lands of a short chamber (221-300/Fireball/Whisper) throat increasing pressure.
Scalhotrod, just the word proprietary and it's connotations. It seems to me to imply that they have more protection than they often really have. I wonder if there's enough to write on the topic that we could just have an article on Proprietary firearm cartridges, which could have an introduction explaining that often the only legal protection is trademarks, with the rest of the article serving as a list article. Then we could link the word to it. It's not a big deal I guess, just a thought. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this piped link to proprietary would explain the situation without the need for a new article; although a paragraph about cartridges might be added to the Generic trademark article. Thewellman (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are all proprietary cartridges only protected by trademark? Its conceivable some of them could be protected by patent (or in the future DRM, like printer ink is?) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of clarification, so I'll always agree to the use of something like proprietary in the respective articles, but lets not get carried away. Gigs, now you're talking about IMO changing the article(s) base on an "impression" which is a potentially dangerous thing since "impressions", "viewpoints", "opinions", and the interpretation of vocabulary and/or grammar vary greatly around the world. This is something we need to keep in mind in order to avoid misinformation of any kind, and it is what I think you are attempting to do/fix, but we have to approach it from a global mindset. How I think about firearms and cartridges (whether I try to avoid or not) because I'm from the United States might be radically different from how someone from the England, Australia, Italy, or China might think about the same things. Cultural bias is everywhere. Make sense? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scalhotrod: I understand that argument, but it's kind of a logical dead end taken by itself, since we can only edit based on what we understand words to mean. Gets pretty philosophical.
Gaijin42: There are ammo related patents, but they generally are on very novel types of ammunition. As an example, the electronic primer system that Remington came out with (that was a flop) had a patent [6]. A lot of novel military/large arms cartridges are patentable as well (grenade launcher video cameras maybe, or things like that). I do see applications for wildcat type small arms cartridge patents on a regular basis, but I'm not seeing any of them in the approved status. They are probably failing on novelty.
So to answer your question; yes there can be truly proprietary cartridges that are protected by trademark, patent, and trade secret (or military classification). To me that's a good argument for us to be more careful in our use of the word to apply to small arms wildcats that only have a trademarked name. Gigs (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs, fair enough, and for the record from a Project perspective I agree that we should have specific naming guidelines that explain things like what a proprietary cartridge is (or is not). I guess I'm just saying lets keep it as simple as possible. How many articles are we talking about? Is this worth a Sandbox list somewhere or is there a category that covers it? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure of the scope of it or how best to approach it. As far as I know we don't have broken down categories for that sort of thing. See Category:Ammunition for what we have. There would be considerable overlap between "widely used Wildcat" and "trademarked name" though, c.f. most all the JD Jones wildcats.
Another minor issue to consider, CIP allows trademarked names, whereas SAAMI does not. CIP will also accept registrations for very similar cartridges and SAAMI does not. Part of this is because in CIP countries, it's basically impossible by law to manufacture cartridges that aren't listed, whereas SAAMI is a voluntary industry standard. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another factor: I've always taken "proprietary" in this context to mean "meant specifically for a maker's weapon", whence .460 Weatherby or some Rems. Isn't that really what it's about? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective fire

I just added a History section and did a variety of other edits to this article. I welcome comments and critiques especially if I left out a firearm that should be mentioned. Thx, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are some other countries in which possession of automatic weapons like yemen, pakistan, or others is legal. You could add something about that. - SantiLak (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, do those countries have legislation specifically about selective fire weapons? I'm happy to add it, but it helps to know what I'm looking for in terms of sources. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if its necessarily selective fire but automatic weapons legality. - SantiLak (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I've added a "main article" link for Overview of gun laws by nation in the Legality section. I thought this would be a better solution than to "copy/paste" a bunch of text from an article and create a section that may need updating in the future. If you know of other countries that have legislation specific to selective fire, please let know or feel free to make the addition yourself. Thx! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance rankings

After noticing some articles which seemed to have their WP:GUNS importance rated too highly, I checked the ratings for other articles, starting with those listed as having 'top' or 'high' importance. My guide is the project's assessment page. The guide has some criteria which are hard to determine, but some are simple. From reading the overall guideline, it appears that these rankings are really of use only to the project which uses them, and I believe they're intended to help determine which articles should receive the most effort. Given that there are thousands of articles that have never been assessed, going through the list seemed like a worthwhile gnoming effort. FWIW, the rankings were created as a result of this discussion in 2013.

But there's already some complications. The 'low' importance ranking includes this category:

  • Firearms related legislation, organizations, and competitive events. (To which I added "court cases" since that seems to follow from "legislation".)

Editors have objected to having National Rifle Association and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ranked as 'low' importance. I understand the objections. The assessment page says:

  • Articles may be assessed higher than these guidelines after reaching consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms.

Should we consider altering the importance scale or just make exceptions for these two articles? Any new criteria should be neutral and easily determined, and it may be easier just to make exceptions for these two articles. (A third option is to get rid of importance ratings entirely, which the MILHIST project did back in 2006. That'd save a lot of work!) What's the consensus? Rezin (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exception - I feel that the rating scale and descriptions are appropriate (as well as the majority of your edits), but with regard to these articles I feel that they should be considered "exceptions". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Given my topic ban that expires in January, that's likely as much detail as I can go into.[reply]
  • Exception - For now, those articles should be exceptions. The 2A article is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms in the United States. The NRA is the leading advocacy group regarding the RKBA. So those articles should be ranked "high". Reform or abolition of the guidelines should be left for a later, more in depth, discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exception - But I would restate my concern expressed in the earlier discussion that tying this project to these articles has a possible consequence of making our project a target of vandals. While United States regulation of civilian ownership of firearms may be an important topic to some American editors, it may be less important to editors from other countries and/or to editors interested in technical or historic aspects of firearms design, manufacture and use. Interested editors should focus on whatever articles they choose, but we may discourage international participation in this project by placing high importance on time consuming articles of limited international interest. Thewellman (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thewellman, I wholeheartedly share your concerns, but my friend its already happening and occurs on a daily basis. Luckily for articles like 2A and such, we also have the support of the Editors who are interested in Political and/or Legal articles. But this is something that is patently unavoidable whether in the StG 44, the AR-15, or NRA article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's a problem with unintended US bias in WP:GUNS articles. Here's a fresh complaint that popped up on my watchlist: [7]. But I don't see how these importance ratings would affect vandalism. The ratings are buried on talk page templates, which are sometimes collapsed. While I wish that something as easy as changing a rating there could impact vandalism, I'd be surprised if vandals check the ratings before making edits like this: [8]. Unless I'm missing something, the only purpose for these ratings is to help this project focus its attention on the most important articles. Rezin (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much it, Rezin, the importance ratings are more internal to the project, or at least that's how I have always seen them. Personally, I would not mind seeing them go away. I think "importance" is subjective.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward

@Thewellman: and I have been discussing this issue on our talk pages. These importance rankings mostly exist to help project members decide which articles deserve the most attention. The current ranking scheme is difficult to implement because deciding which items are of 'top' importance requires extensive research. I am planning to work on improving the sourcing of WP:GUN articles, and naturally want to focus on the most important articles first. So, for the sake of practicality, I'm going to start by checking unranked articles to find those which should be in the 'top' or 'high' rankings. However I'm going to set aside the formal criteria and use my best judgment, taking the criteria as well as page popularity into account. I think requiring a consensus here on rankings is overly bureaucratic. If anyone disagrees with my rankings they're free to change them. I'm not going to worry too much about re-ranking over-rated articles, or about deciding which articles are 'low' versus 'mid'. My aim is just to prioritize the list of articles to work on. If anyone is smart about cartridges I'd appreciate their help ranking those - it's tricky remembering which are which. Later, we might revisit the value of these rankings and either rewrite them or delete them outright. That's my plan. Rezin (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bossu and velo-dog

Is the Bossu revolver the same, or similar type to the Velo-dog? And/or is it a generic type rather than a brand. The Bossu Revolver article has a picture of a revolver which is very similar in appearance to the Velo-dog, and the source website given identifies more than one manufacturer as making "Bossu" revolvers eg Lincoln-Bossu from HDH, Lepage Bossu etc. I notice in trying out google translate on the image description for file:Bossu.jpg that Bossu may translate as "hunchback" - a reference to the curve of the hammer enclosure? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some unreliable sources which may help:[9][10]. And a reliable but brief one: [11]. It seem like they're the same revolver. Rezin (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, given the shaky evidence, I've tweaked the Bossu Revolver article rather than redirect or merge. It probably ought to be at Bossu revolver or Bossu (revolver)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALFA - as in ALFA Defender, Combat etc

Me again, quick one this. Is ALFA -PROJ [12] an acronym or just the manufacturer's name writ in capitals for branding purposes? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the 'history' and 'about us' pages list a few other companies or brand names, all of which are capitalized. I think it's a Czech thing. Nowhere that I can find do they indicate the name is an acronym. On the home page they slip once and write, " Introduction of the Alfa steel model series improved the quality...". Rezin (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source discussion

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

Site name/site url

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

Common outcomes

  • 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

Discussion

One editor on this project page said that he stays away from it when possible. Another editor doubts his reliability on weapons acquisitions. A third notes his lack of engineering, history, or military credentials and says the information is second-hand and uncited. Nonetheless, he seems to be commonly accepted. Any other input?Rezin (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion:

The webmaster and main author, Jeff Quinn, does not claim to have had his work published elsewhere. Searching on my own, I can only find two articles, on revolvers, that were published by Gun Digest.[15][16] The only previous discussion has an editor saying the site doesn't seem to meet the WP requirements. Despite the site's interesting articles, I would be inclined to say this site is an SPS and that the Jeff Quinn is not a recognized expert according to WP rules. If he was deemed an expert, it would appear his expertise is limited to revolvers. However he does publish other writers and it's possible that some of those are experts in their own rights. Rezin (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will disagree. Quinn is an editor for Gun Digest, he has appeared in a few of the books they have released on Google Books, but his writing has appeared more times in the newsstand magazines that are published bi-weekly. I have written for Gun Digest in the past and while I do not know Mr Quinn, personally, I can attest to their vetting process, particularly at the editorial level. They don't just hire someone off the street who has a bunch of guns, to be an editor. He has either verified industry bonafides and/or a degree in journalism. I would say to look at the articles at least on a case by case basis. When it comes to history, metallurgy, production numbers, manufacturing tolerances, etc. He does publish articles by other experts such as Bob Campbell, Leroy Thompson and Mike Cumpston (who edits wiki as well) and has at least directed them in their efforts at GD.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Gunblast publishes established experts. And I have found another article by Quinn, on the Henry rifle.[17] I don't see any evidence that he has a degree in journalism, or that having one would matter in this regard. Speaking more broadly, and no offense to anyone here, firearm journalism has an ambiguous reputation, especially when it comes to reviews. Quinn himself apparently thinks so.[18] For that reason, simply having a review published by a firearms magazine is probably insufficient to make one an expert. However Quinn's articles are more extensive than that and I'd be happy to see us regard him as a legitimate expert, on revolvers in particular. Rezin (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, he has definitely had more than a single review published. Having a degree in journalism, to me is at least a basic measure of an IQ test for a professional writer (he knows not to plagiarize, seeks impartiality, etc) but more importantly for an editor of a publication in that he should demand the same from his contributors. Some magazines are worse than others in that they publish good reviews to keep advertisers, but it's that way for most magazines. One of the titles that I write for on a regular basis, demands that I find flaws or shortcomings with any firearm that I review (advertiser's be damned!), but that is the exception. Although, I believe that it will become more widespread as more editors will come to realize that readers want facts, not fluff.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess we can say that the site hosts articles by Quinn and other experts, and that those articles are reliable for topics in their field of expertise. That would exclude articles by his relatives, Boge and Greg, for example. Rezin (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome:

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

HKPRO/ hkpro.com

Discussion:

The articles on this site are unsigned, and the website itself has no information about who runs it or what editorial review process they have. WP editors have referred to it as a fan site or, more charitably, an aficionado site. One editor says it's run by current and former HK employees, but I can't find any evidence of that. Rezin (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC) - Update: I searched around a little more and found this page, which appears to be the anonymous owner' bio. He makes it clear he's not an employee, just a fan working in law enforcement in the US. He even admits his skills in German aren't good. For the above reasons this does not seem to be a reliable source. Rezin (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's got a good forum and there is a lot of knowledge to be learned there; I know the articles are separate and serve as a starting point for many prospective writers, however, it is not a reliable source, for our purposes. I would hold the same for AR15.com, Uzitalk.com, czfirearms.com, etc. The only exception being would be a unique and reliable previously published article that may be hosted or mirrored on those sites.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an article which has been previously published is reposted to a forum or self-published website, it'd be best to use the original publication as the source. That's especially true if there's any question about the copyright. For this source, I'll go ahead and mark the outcome as "unreliable", remove the citations from articles, and post links to this thread on their talk pages. Rezin (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, what I mean, though, is if the article in question is not available elsewhere. Say there is a definitive piece on a Galil published 25 years ago and there is some "Randy from Idaho" alleging that the rifle was tested on skeleton warriors armed with broadswords and not reliable for hunting wolverines. You would cite the original source, but use the link to the mirror.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can worry about that when the skeletons start to attack. ;) BTW, I'm leaving the links HKPRO articles in 'external links' sections when I see them, as the threshold is lower for those. Rezin (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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: [20]. One cite was restored, so I tagged it as SPS and left a note on the talk page. [21] 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.[22] Rezin (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military Guns & Ammunition quarryhs.co.uk

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)[reply]

Outcome

Reliable SPS because the author is a published expert.

Remtek remtek.com

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)[reply]

Outcome

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

Reload Bench reloadbench.com

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)[reply]

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

The Box 'O Truth theboxotruth.com

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Gun Zone gunzone.com

Discussion:

The main author and webmaster, Dean Speir, lists extensive credentials on an outside website: [29]. 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)[reply]

It's a glorified blog, unreliable. We can do better than this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My bias may be personal, I'll keep out of this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#"Guns And Shooting Online" chuckhawks.com Rezin (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sniper Central snipercentral.com

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.[32] 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.[33][34] 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.[35] The reviews, etc, seem to be written mostly, or perhaps exclusively, by Ewing.[36][37] 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)[reply]

Outcome

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

Cruffler cruffler.com

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: [39][40][41] 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',[42]. 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)[reply]

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

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

Internet Movie Firearms Database imfdb.org

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

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,[46] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [47]. Here's a more casual one: [48]. 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.[49] Once you've obtained that source, you can cite it directly. Rezin (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Carbines For Collectors carbinesforcollectors.com

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)[reply]

Outcome

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

6mmBR.com/AccurateShooter.com

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)[reply]

Outcome

Reliable source due to the appearance of strong editorial oversight.

Terminal Ballistics Research ballisticstudies.com

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.[54] 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)[reply]


Bangladesh Military Forces bdmilitary.com

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.[56] 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)[reply]

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News ammoland.com

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)[reply]

Security Arms securityarms.com

  • 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 [59] 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, [60], 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)[reply]

Category proposed for deletion (AR platform)

Members of this wikiproject are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_13#Category:AR_platform. DexDor (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source discussion 2

Sorry to come in later here - apologies especially to Rezin and Mike Searson - but I would like to see in this project's source list(s) some indication of whether or not the source is biased. Are they pro-gun/anti-control, pro-control/anti-gun (for lack of better words), or neutral? Are they strictly technical/tactical in nature, or do they politicize their comments?

For example, the World Guns site by the Russian man. His Civilian rifles page says:

Firearms are just tools, developed by humans and for humans through centuries to accomplish various tasks. These tasks may vary, but in my opinion firearms are as legitimate for civilian purposes as anything else, and according to statistics on accidents in many countries, firearms are less dangerous than automobiles.

Of various uses of firearms, I put the self-defense as most important for civilians. Self-defense is an essential human right...

His technical expertise may be fine (I dunno, the technical stuff is not my area of expertise), but editors should be aware of his politics on the issue of firearms when selecting and citing him as a source. Afterall, not all of the articles under this project are purely technical - in fact, some focus on politics over the technical/tactical facts. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline seems to be WP:BIASED. It says "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ...Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source..." My take on it would be that all sources are biased in some way. The two issues for editing are whether they are reliable based on external factors, like editing process, and whether it would be appropriate to attribute the material to the source. The discussion above concerns the first issue. The second issue probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the exact material and context. Rezin (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Max R. Popenker's self-published website: like any SPS, that source is only usable as in areas where the author has previously published material. So he's likely an expert on revolvers or WWII infantry weapons for example, but I don't know that he's ever published on general gun control/RTKBA issues. I'd started including the limits on individual SPS sources in the discussion above, but stopped because it's tedious to track down everything an author has ever published. However those limits are still implicit, and can be made explicit wherever it matters. Rezin (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share Mike's preference for keeping the focus of this project on technical aspects of firearms rather than the social aspects of firearms use; but I question the validity of assumed correlations between authors' social perspectives and knowledge of technical details. Those who may have winced at the preceding comment should consider the difference between writing about day care centers and writing about how to run day care centers. I don't perceive a problem about an author's social perspectives for articles focused on firearms rather than how to use firearms. Perhaps articles falling into the latter category should be tagged: 
    {{howto|date= }}
    Thewellman (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, Wikiproject members are free to define their projects however they like. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Define the scope. The guidance suggests finding a scope whose definition is natural, whose size is large enough to draw in a sustainable group of editors yet narrow enough to avoid excessive overlap with other projects. Inclusion of an article or subtopic within a project doesn't really affect the article directly, it just means that it shows up on the project's watchlists, etc. Project members don't need to work on articles where they have no interest.
  • As currently written, there's nothing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms page to show that articles about laws, policies, regulation, advocacy groups, etc, are within the scope of the project. The page limits itself to firearms themselves. I don't know how or when or why the de facto scope grew to include non-technical topics. If editors here care enough, we might start a new thread to get a fresh consensus on what the scope of this project should be. Rezin (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: I was reading too hastily. The "scope" is "Topics encompassing both broad concepts and specific models, ammunition, manufacturers, organizations, legislation, and historical figures such as inventors and notable gunsmiths associated with such firearms." Regardless, that's not set in stone - we can change it anytime we like. Rezin (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we also need to keep in mind the context of the source and what is being used from it? If we happen to get a technical detail from an article with a heavy political slant, does it matter if we're not using any of the political content? We already know better than to state opinion as fact or in Wikipeida's voice. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage that approach, but recognize such differentiation would be easier if all of us understood the various dialects of English being written. Sources may rely upon language from legislation or regulation specifying a significantly different definition from widely understood use of a term. Some consider one definition superior and disregard differing definitions in other legislation, dictionaries or documents as mere opinions. The concept of political correctness suggests vocabulary is being legislated. Those who doubt it might recall newspeak from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four to realize how many of today's editors cannot remember the world before that date. Thewellman (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source discussion 3

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy and I could be wrong about how all of this works, but I have been reading up on this issue. The main policy on sources seems to be WP:Verifiability. Let me quote some text that may be applicable to this discussion.

  • Intro: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. ... Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. ... All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. ... Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
  • Responsibility for providing citations: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.
  • Reliable sources: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. ... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. ... Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria.
  • Self-published sources: ...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. [Footnote 7: Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources] [Emphasis in original]
  • Notability: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

There may be something more in the policy which I've missed but those seem like the most relevant points. I've been trying to find something that covers the issue of topics (or facts) which can only be found in sources that don't meet the reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there's no "best availabel" exemption for less-than-reliable sources.

As I understand it, citations to less-than-reliable sources should be removed. Unverifiable material may be removed. What happens in between is less clear. My assumption is that it's helpful or polite to leave a "citation needed" tag in place of the deleted citation. At some later point, if no sources are added or found, the unverifiable material may be removed. (Sooner if it's about a living person, but that's probably not a common issue with this project.) Does that sound right?

To answer @Faceless Enemy:: editors should neither cite the less-than-reliable source nor copy from it. They should leave the information out of Wikipedia. If a topic is so obscure that reliable sources don't report on it then Wikipedia shouldn't report on it either. That's harsh but it looks like how Wikipedia is meant to operate. Rezin (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great summary Rezin! My only addition is that the rule of thumb, for better or worse, is that "verifiability trumps truth". So unless its something like "the sky is blue", it needs to be cited, BUT like we've found in several firearm articles, sources can be outdated or just plain wrong. That's were the work gets created. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video game references in firearms articles

FYI: I've started a thread on a different page to see if there's any solution to the problem of unsourced content about firearms in video games. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Video game references in firearms articles. Feel free to join the discussion on that page. Rezin (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than I thought. I'd assumed that maybe, in some cases, there might be sources to support an occasional entry. The guys over at the video game project tell me that they're not aware of any. That's different from the situation with movies, where I've seen reliable sources discussing things like James Bond guns, etc. In light of that, I think it's appropriate to assume that no content on firearms video games has a realistic chance of being sourced and should be deleted routinely if no source has been provided. That's a stricter level of scrutiny than might apply to other popular culture content, where sources may indeed be found. Rezin (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One problem I perceive about this is that the subject matter is fictional, so much of a material about it is based on direct observation of the game itself as a WP:PRIMARY source. This seems to happen often with articles about cartoons, movies, comic books and any other fictional material where material in the subject can literally just be made up. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and that point was also made on the video game page (using the example of a game that lets players reload a machine gun while firing). WP:UNDUE would seem to suggest that a game which has been played by millions that features guns might be worth mentioning, but since the depictions are so unrealistic and since video game publications don't talk about them, the bottom line is that the primary sources are fictional and the secondary sources are nonexistent. The situation with movies, where they usually have to have an actual physical gun for a prop, is different but also problematic. To make up an example, they might refer to something as an "AK47" while holding a different rifle, or ascribe to it unrealistic capabilities. But there are far better secondary sources on movies (and, to a lesser extent TV shows) and often real guns are shown realistically, so I believe there are occasional instances where the specific firearm can be shown to have affected popular culture. Mare's Leg is an extreme example where a TV show inspired manufacturer's to build and sell a type of rifle. Anyway, I think we can adjust the WP:GUNS MOS guideline to alert users to the fact that sources for guns in video games are virtually nonexistent and it's pointless to apply "citation tag" notices in the hope they'll appear. Rezin (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular culture"

The current "pop culture" MOS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture, is overly complicated. In almost every case, the lack of secondary sources is all that's needed to exclude inappropriate entries. I suggest this as a simpler guideline, more in line with general Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the verbiage at Template:In popular culture:

  • Appearances of firearms in popular cultural should only be listed if they have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. The depictions themselves (films, TV shows, video games, comic books, novels, etc) are primary sources and are insufficientnot sufficient references for inclusion. Video games frequently depict firearms unrealistically and their use is rarely covered in secondary sources. For that reason unsourced entries concerning video games should be deleted without requesting a source first. Replicas, such as Airsoft and toys, versions of real firearms are not notable to firearm articles unless they have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Where sources are available, popular culture appearances should be treated in articles with coverage appropriate to their significance to the subject of the article; as per WP:UNDUE. The material should explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. See WP:MILPOP for the guidelines on pop culture pertaining to military history, excluding firearms.

Replica guns, like toys and Airsoft, are somewhat of a separate issue but can be squeezed in. Does anyone see any problems with this guideline replacing what's there now? Rezin (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better, the only thing that I think would be helpful to add is examples of "good", "better", "best", and "unacceptable" applications. I don't know what those are off the top of my head, I'm sure they exist. We should be including links to the main MOS sections that govern the content as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sure how to work up a quality scale. I think the aim here, so far, is simply to differentiate "acceptable" from "unacceptable", with the criterion for acceptability being adequate sourcing. One more thing which might be worth adding, which I saw on some MOS advice page somewhere, is that prose is better than bulleted lists in these situations. A prose format encourages editors to actually say something about the significance of the appearance. Bulleted lists invite trivial entries that don't describe relevance. But that'd probably be a recommendation rather than a requirement. Actually, all of these Wikiproject MOS entries are just recommendations, which apparently have no more standing than personal essays. WP:Advice pages. But to the extent we have them they should be clear, useful, and consistent with WP rules. Rezin (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, it's probably possible to find an article with a decent or even pretty good "pop culture" section. We could link to that as an example to aim for. Rezin (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&oldid=644913504"