Talk:Glock

Serbian army pistol

Serbian army does not use the Glock pistol but the CZ99, I don't know who put it there and as evidence an random page that describes the Glock 17 pistol is used as a proof, in the text itself it was no where mentioned that Serbian army uses the Glock pistols. It is also not listed in their equipment you can find on internet not even in the Special brigade inventory. Also you can search internet and you will not find a single photo of any serbian soldier holding a Glock pistol. Police specail forces and Gandarmery do use them but they are not part of the army. Also if you insist on puting it there please provide actual proof not some randome page that describes a certain pistol. Thank you 14.03.2017

Local police departments

Do local police departments in the U.S. belong in the users section, especially when lacking citations? If I remember correctly, something like 60% of police departments use glocks. It just seems to me that clutters up the page with a lot of not particularly notable information. Anyone have thoughts on this, or ideas how to deal with it? - Mr.1032 (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree... it should be limited to state and federal entities in the US. (my opinion) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can make it as simple as that. The NYPD has 40,000 officers, the Glock 17 & 19 are among their issued sidearms, and they are a 'local' police department. Yet they are larger than pretty much any state or federal LE agency, so how do you not include them? If the department is notable enough to have their own article, they use the Glock and there is RS supporting that, there is no reason to not include them. The article is not overly long and WP is not made of paper. - ^theWOLFchild 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild, that's a great point and example. I suppose I'd suggest maybe not including so many departments without RS? All the federal agencies, most of the state agencies, and the major departments (like NYPD, CPD, and so on) ought to be easy to source, and undoubtedly belong in the list. Could we go ahead and start removing a couple of the more obscure items, or are there any other thoughts? - Mr.1032 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some criteria for inclusion based on WP:WEIGHT. Why do we include four small cities in Virginia out of the "60% of police departments" that use Glocks? RS coverage is a basic requirement in any case and a Wikipedia article about the police department would be a good simple litmus test. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.1032: I've seen similar lists this take a hard line; "no ref, no go" - any entry without a source gets removed. Some guys will notice, try to re-add, but when they see thats how it is now, they usually find a source quick enough. I wouldn't oppose going in that direction with this list. Remove all the unsourced entries, then add suppressed advisories that any entry without a ref will be immediately removed. The list should start to improve after that. I did this with the List of United States Navy SEALs (any entry without a parent article, as in red-link or no link, must have an attached ref, and it worked pretty well. Not the same as here, but similar, I'm sure you get the idea. I wouldn't impose that on this list on my own though. If some other editors agree and there's no objections however, then we should probably give it a go. - ^theWOLFchild 03:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a basic rule around here, content must be verifiable and unsourced statements can be removed without controversy if no source is to be found. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed the local police departments per this discussion. Please discuss any concerns. –dlthewave ☎ 21:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

3 new 9MM entries needed

For the Glock 19X, Glock 43X, and Glock 48. 173.171.238.16 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of crime list

The list of crimes was deleted last November. A discussion with respect to the list was had here [[1]]. Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. The concern and consensus was this had become an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general. It is not clear that external RSs about the Glock company commonly include long lists of crimes. This isn't to say that a crime section can't be supported via RSs but we should base our inclusion and the associations of any particular crime with external sources about Glock that make that association. Springee (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For accuracy sake, please note the discussion was not unanimous. Please see the link for the views of each editor. Springee (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. This isn't like AR-15 style weapon or whatever, and there is no indication that there is some intrinsic link between the weapon, or choice of weapon, and these crimes. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The brief discussion at WP:FIREARMS is not compelling; it consists mainly of non-policy-based arguments such as the deprecated requirement that criminal use lead to changes in law and unfounded accusations of "anti-gun editors pushing a political agenda". I'm curious why a list of crimes is described as "out of control" and needs to be "limited", when the same concerns do not seem to other sections of the article. Do external sources about Glock list all of the government agencies that use Glock pistols? Springee, this seems to be part of your "reciprocity of weight" idea (interpreting WP:WEIGHT to require coverage in sources that are about the topic), but you are only applying it to the Criminal Use section. How should we handle the rest of the article? As an experiment, can we try removing all sources that aren't about Glocks? –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What policy based argument favors inclusion? WEIGHT would apply if we have reliable sources about Glock the company that include lists of crimes associated with Glock the company. The list is out of control because it is long, has no content other than "Crime X included a Glock" and is indiscriminate because no justification for inclusion was offered or suggested.

Dlthewave, your comment about reciprocity of weight is a legitimate one. My reply is two fold. First, it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users. Second, and this is more significant in this case, the Glock's police market share and the way Glock pistols basically replaced older revolvers is a very significant part of the Glock story. That doesn't specifically support a list of every department that has a news blurb that they acquired Glock guns but it does mean we are following the lead of external sources about the company in terms of content. Springee (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the Users section is treated differently; most of the entries consist of "Department X uses Glocks", sourced to police department websites that mention the weapon in passing. I assume you would not object to removing these as well?

I don't follow the logic of "it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users". You are insisting that we discuss Criminal Use on an article-by-article basis, but on the other hand you use the existence of User sections at other articles to justify inclusion here. It looks like special pleading to me. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that your mass removal of sourced users might want to get a few voices of support first. However, I will leave it to someone else if they want to restore it. Anyway, I think the distinction you are missing is if sources about X often discuss Y then it's easier to justify adding Y_i even if the i^th article isn't "about X". The wide spread association and discussion is there. But I will grant it's not as hard and fast a rule. If you want to open a project level discussion I think it could be a productive topic. Springee (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're treating the two sections differently. You removed the Criminal Use section before gaining support, but you are asking me to gain support before removing content from Users. There is in fact a well-established precedent for including criminal use content in other articles; would that justify inclusion here or is it an exception to your rule?

I'm not sure how a project-level discussion would help. Wikiprojects do not establish or interpret policies. As we discussed on my talk page, if you would like to gain community consensus for your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, I would suggest opening an RfC at Village Pump. –dlthewave ☎ 05:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There was support for the removal per the discussion linked above. You were part of that discussion. I didn't initially remove the content. Springee (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Glock is one of the most common pistols in the world. It is useless intricate WP:TRIVIA detail to include a list of crimes it was used in. --Pudeo (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OPPOSE the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.--RAF910 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@RAF910: This is your first comment in this discussion. Could you give a specific reason? –dlthewave ☎ 02:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

There are sources that discuss Glock and mass shooting. For example:

• Glock semiautomatic pistol links recent mass shootings, WaPo (2012): Virginia Tech. Gabby Giffords. Now Aurora, Colo. The names and places are linked by tragedy, death and the Glock semiautomatic handgun.
• Glock pistols are the overlooked weapon in American mass shootings, Vice News (2016): ...Glock, a brand of firearm that has been used nearly as often as assault rifles to commit mass murder. (...) Another compendium of mass shootings since 2009 by the New York Times showed that handguns were used in 13 incidents, compared to five in which a rifle was the primary weapon. Glocks were recovered from six of the perpetrators.

Perhaps this section is better rendered in paragraph form, with high-profile incidents integrated into the prose. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a start. What encyclopedic content can we get out of these articles. Neither seemed to be of substantial quality. Both simply said some crimes were committed with the guns. The best was the WP which noted that Glocks are common and reliable. So it could be inferred that the guns were picked because they were common and reliable. Give the vague association and the tie in to the suggestion for more gun control I'm would say that this isn't sufficient to establish WEIGHT. The WP is a generally a quality source. Vice isn't. That said, what would you propose adding based on those articles?

This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms. I don't see a "criminal use" section for the 1934 Ford or the Chevrolet Impala. Why not? Because there's a hate-on for guns. The list should be deleted as trivial. Absent demonstrated changes to law or policy as a result of a crime, the use of a Glock is trivia. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms" This is neutral, factual content. Please WP:AGF.

"Absent demonstrated changes to law or policy as a result of a crime, the use of a Glock is trivia." What policy or guideline is this based on? –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The content is factual but given it's part of an article that suggests the need for more gun control it's hardly neutral. WEIGHT would still apply. We have a generally RS but the content is hardly encyclopedic and offers no significant insight or understanding. If the articles suggested there was something unique about how Glock marketed their guns or that their guns were used disproportionately then I think we would have more to go on. Springee (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the article reports on a controversy does not make it non-neutral, and in any case there's no requirement that sources be neutral. It would be entirely appropriate to mention the that the use of Glocks in mass shootings has led to calls for gun control. –dlthewave ☎ 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• The sources linked by K.e.coffman go a long way toward fulfilling what I consider to be important here: that an explicit link be drawn between the gun and the crime, that is, between the choice for this particular gun/brand and crime. I do not believe such a link is a given for all kinds/brands of weapons; as I mentioned above, it's clearly there for the AR-15 type, and coffman may well be right that it is here for Glock. If that is the case, then a well-chosen selection would be appropriate. (I am not always convinced that Vice is worth citing, but that's another discussion.) If Omar Mateen used a Glock of some sort, and his use fits a pattern outlined by secondary sources, then yeah, it becomes noteworthy--and that is actually exactly the same way in which we list military and law enforcement customers of some weapon, lists that frequently I also find silly, by the way.

  User:Trekphiler, your comment, "is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms" is so far out of bounds that it falls foul of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control, Principles #2 and #6. Whether this particular article falls under the gun control scope is not clear, but the principles outlined there extend to all articles, of course. I urge you to be less defensive and more neutral--and to avoid silly arguments like "I don't see that for the Chevy Impala". I mean, that's really silly. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Silly? It's hypocritical garbage to treat only guns as if they're somehow responsible for crime. WP is no different in this than mainstream media, & it's no less true here. WP falls back on "verifiability, not truth" as an excuse, so sourcing means the mainstream bias is defensible in WP terms. Defensible garbage is still garbage. And I'm not the slightest bit "defensive" on this subject, since I've no dog in this hunt. I may be one of a handful of non-gun owners who happens to believe the NRA is right, & restricting law-abiding citizenry as a way of attacking crime is nonsensical. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

UNDUE tag, crime section

I've tagged the section just added to the article as undue. I don't believe those advocating inclusion have shown sufficient weight for inclusion based on the discussions above. Springee (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Springee The Criminal use section added in this edit seems to meet your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, "WEIGHT would apply if we have reliable sources about Glock the company that include lists of crimes associated with Glock the company", keeping in mind that this article is about Glock pistols and not just Glock the company. Could you elaborate on your objections? –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I was concerned about the quality of the articles and their basically content free nature. As is I would oppose inclusion but I'll use the tag so others can weigh in. Springee (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "content free", and what are your specific concerns about the quality? All three go into detail about why the guns may be chosen by mass shooters and the controversy regarding their legality. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Two of the sources are the ones discussed above. The new source is about calls for new gun laws after a mass shooting. It only mentions the word "Glock" once to identify the gun used in a particular crime. Even if we keep the section that particular source would fail by test above because it isn't at all about "Glock". Springee (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the first two sources were discussed above, but your arguments such as "The content is factual but given it's part of an article that suggests the need for more gun control it's hardly neutral." and "...offers no significant insight or understanding" do not seem to be based on existing policy or thorough evaluation of the sources. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Starting a new discussion on the same issue, is just another attempt at forum shopping. The above discussion is 2 for and 4 against inclusion of a criminal use section.--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@RAF910: It's not a vote, and you have yet to contribute substantially to any discussion on this page. Do you have a specific objection to the content? Comments such as "the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.", when no reason has been previously stated and none was given upon request, do not contribute to consensus. Regarding your forum shopping accusation, the new content is an attempt to address concerns raised in previous discussions such as "If a number of news/RS talk about Glocks and their use in crimes I think that makes sense." There seems to have been a shift in the location of the goalposts. dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Springee, but that little three-sentence section is so short in comparison to the rest of the article, and its content relatively well-sourced with reliable sources, that this tag is too much for my taste. I thought some long list had been reinstated, but this content, meh. Now, a discussion of the sources etc. would be welcome, of course, but I don't see (on this talk page) many valid objections against this short, short, short note. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

My issue is two fold. First, I don't think we have shown DUE with the 3 references. One fails the "about Glock" criteria that I suggested above. VICE is just generally a low quality, long on hype, low on substance source. Their gun coverage is little more than click bait. The WP is the only one that I would put in the RS about Glocks area. So at that point we have just a single source. I supported including the crime material in the AR-15 article because there is just so many articles discussing AR-15's and their use in mass shootings. Right or wrong, the volume from RSs is there. In this case we have just one RS and one low quality article. That isn't much to go on. The second issue is what did we add that was encyclopedic? Glocks are common, reliable, relatively affordable pistols. Nothing in that article suggested Glock was doing anything that made their guns particularly appealing to mass shooters nor that they were particularly deadly compared to the many other modern semi-auto pistols on the market. When discussing why police departments converted from revolvers to Glocks its easy to cite the attributes of the Glock pistols vs revolvers that made them popular with police departments (Reliable, easy to operate for officers who aren't gun enthusiasts, first mover advantage in the market - reputation was established when they were the only game in town, now momentum carries the sales, etc). So where is the material that says why Glocks are popular with mass shooters other than the same reasons that make them popular in general? If we found that murders drove Ford F-150s at the same rate as the population at large would we make a fuss that so many murders drove Fords vs say BMWs? In short the article has no insight and in this article exists only as a coatrack to link the pistols to a few crimes.

Disagree with removal of UNDUE tag. Given the concerns above I would like to put the undue tag back into the article. If nothing else it will give editors a chance to find better, more informative sources. Springee (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• The current sources are sufficient to establish due weight. The concern in the earlier discussion was about "an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general." Such sources have been presented. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

On what grounds? We have 3 sources in the article. One only mentions the use of a Glock so that wouldn't be sufficient. The VICE article is of low quality. So we have only one, the WP. Even if we give credit to the VICE article as a RS, we still just have two. That isn't much given that neither offers any insight and just says "this gun was used here" but can't say why. I would suggest addressing the concerns by finding more/better sources rather than trying to claim these two are sufficient. Springee (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, the WP and Vice articles both go into detail about why Glocks are popular with mass shooters. They're not just routine "this gun was used here" coverage. Yes, these are the same reasons that they're also popular with law enforcement and the general public, so I'm not sure why criminal use would be treated differently. If reliable sources wrote about a trend of mass murderers using F-150s, then of course we would cover that in the F-150 article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please quote any of the statements that show what depth is shown. The WP article says the guns are common and reliable. So is an F-150 pickup. If there is nothing unique and they are only used because they are common then why is that information encyclopedic. That is the catch 22 here. What you are mistaken about is comparing why they are popular with law enforcement vs the general population. In the case of law enforcement the Glock is significant because it resulted in a large scale change in what the departments purchased, moving from revolvers to pistols. As is the link shown is tenuous. To be honest if you want to show something that probably is significant about Glocks consider the rate of accidental discharges? The in trigger safety mechanism seams like a laughable idea to many. To release the safety you pull the trigger... I've seen it reported that Glocks have a higher rate of accidental discharge specifically because the action of pulling the trigger also defeats the safety. Clumsy handling can result in a discharge. A revolver's longer, heavier two stage trigger prevents such issues as do the more common, outside the trigger safety of most pistols. Either way, perhaps we need additional voices here. Currently we are about evenly split on inclusion of this new material (no clear consensus) but I would rather we fix the problem (more/better sourcing) vs just edit war the material. Springee (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to write add a section about accidental discharges. It would be a constructive addition to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)