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

Recent edit 2

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "convert list to prose; WP:CATALOG: excessive and promotional detail; unneeded self-citations". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the many improvements! Just a couple things; the Model comparison chart was the only location of some technical information for several models, if the chart remains absent I think that information ought to be integrated back into the article in other sections. Also, was there any particular reason to remove the Regional variants and Training variants sections? It seems to me those could have been kept. - Mr.1032 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The model comparison chart was unsourced and struck me too much as WP:CATALOG. If readers want to do model comparisons, that's what manufacturer's website is for. The content in the other two sections was sourced to blogs / personal websites, again: too much intricate detail cited to non-RS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In an article about a company that manufacturers and markets a line of pistols that is used by so many police and military organizations around the world, and sold to so many millions of civilians, that it's beyond notable, but you feel that listing the different models and calibers is somehow prohibited by WP policy? You really believe an encyclopaedia shouldn't contain this kind of info? Can the GM or Toyota articles here list the different models of cars and trucks they have? Can they list the different engines available? Or does this strike you as too much as WP:CATALOG? If reader's want to do model comparisons, that's what the automaker's websites are for...? Do you also feel that such large sections of articles should be removed based on a single editor's opinion? And your comment about "What the readers want"... isn't what we're here for? I could swear I saw that "it's what the readers want" was an argument for adding the "criminal use" sections to firearms articles, but if they want any info about the article subject itself, or it's legitimate use, they must go elsewhere? Anyway, please don't take anything personal from this, I'm just curious about some of the edits you've been making and the reasoning for them. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 06:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There clearly should have been a conversation about such a substantial content removal. Or at least or tag first. These actions seem to be following a pattern. -72bikers (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with editing an article. However I also saw substantial (sourced) content removal without conversation or an attempt to otherwise restore it. I suggest K.e.coffman starts restoring the removed content. I miss the model table that presents such information more clearly than a firearms infobox with dimensional information of 10⁺ variants and the structure of the removed second generation caption.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Content in question

Here's some of the content that was indeed cited to 3rd party sources (rather than being cited to the company itself or uncited):

• The Glock 17S is a variant with an external, frame-mounted, manual safety. Small numbers of this variant were made for the Tasmanian, Israeli, Pakistani, and perhaps several South American security forces. They are stamped "17", not "17S". They resemble, but are distinguishable from, standard Glock 17 pistols that have been fitted with the after-market Cominolli safety. An additional safety variant Glock 17 that was tested by the British Military included a frame safety similar to that found on the British service rifle, the SA-80.
• The Glock 17Pro version is produced exclusively for the Finnish market. It has these alterations from the standard Glock 17: factory tritium night sights, an extended, threaded barrel, marine spring cups, modified magazine release, extended slide stop lever (factory standard in newer models), extended +2 magazine baseplates, 15.5 N (3.5 lb_f) connector, and factory Glock pouch.
• The Glock 19 Canadian Edition was introduced at SHOT show 2018 and released to market in March 2018 as a Gen4 Glock 19 with a 106mm barrel to meet Canadian legal requirements for pistol barrel length. The Canadian Edition pistol features a laser-inscribed maple leaf on the right side of the slide, near the muzzle. All other features of the pistol are identical to the standard Glock 19 Gen4.

References

The sources include:

• http://www.cominolli.com - a commercial website
• https://web.archive.org/web/20080111003651/http://www.glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s - a personal website
• http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ - a blog
• http://www.guns.com/ - a blog / commercial website

Here's the diff in question, if there's anything I missed, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources are entirely appropriate for basic specification. It is neither subjective or controversial content such as the performance or the lack thereof. -15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)72bikers (talk)

It's excessive intricate detail cited to non-independent and / or self-published sources; encyclopedia articles are not product catalogues or indiscriminate collections of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That is just your interpretation. You do realize not all share your views, and by denying compromise you are denying consensus.-72bikers (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

Overpressure

At Glock § Development, it says the overpressure test is 5000 bar, but the source and NATO EPVAT testing § Proofing both say 25% overpressure, which is 3150 bar. Where did 5000 come from? (It was added 9 years ago by blocked user Koalorka) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:50, 30 August 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)