From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Disputed definition[edit]

Recently, the definition was changed to require weapons being used in combat or warfare. I dispute this, citing Merriam Webster. I'd like to move toward consensus. --Eyrian 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a compromise possible, certainly. But I believe there is general consensus among scholars that the Oxford English Dictionary trumps the Merriam-Webster in terms of authority for English language usage. The warfare and combat definition is attributed to the OED. Indeed that wording is almost verbatim taken from the OED. Would you be willing to look at the definition in the OED and tell me what you think? It is available in most libraries, and the online access is limited, but easy to obtain by most people via the Web, in my case through my local library using my library card number to log on. SaltyBoatr 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Under U.S. federal law, as well as under many state laws, black powder guns are legally defined as weapons and not as firearms. There are regular hunting seasons that are open to blackpowder weapons only. Primitive hunting is typically open just before modern firearm hunting seasons open, although there are exceptions. Such black powder weapons are definitely not currently used for combat or warfare, although historically, of course, they were used for such. It is incorrect to call such guns firearms, as they are not legally defined as such by either state or federal law. And, these weapons are used for hunting. There is a total lack of federal controls and firearms laws when purchasing blackpowder revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and muskets. Arguing over which dictionary to use is not the proper approach for resolving this. When discussing modern firearms, then yes, they are firearms and are not considered weapons when used for hunting. However, to say that no weapons are used for hunting is totally false. It all depends. Yaf 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That a combat weapon can sometimes be used for hunting is not inconsistent with the Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'weapon'. Still, at least the way I read the OED, using the phrase 'hunting weapon' or 'recreational weapon' are improper usages of the English language. The OED is the 'gold standard' for definitions in the English language. SaltyBoatr 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is very weak on sourcing. We should cooperate and rewrite it using high quality sourcing. Starting at the top. There is really no higher quality sourcing than the Oxford English Dictionary, and the old intro was totally unsourced and seemingly original research. I don't really understand Yaf's argument, that combat weapons can have a dual use as hunting firearms, therefore this justifies the revert of the intro based on the OED to an intro based on apparent original research. I don't follow that logic. SaltyBoatr 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting aside. The OED definition of 'hunting' is "The action or practice of chasing game or other wild animals, either for profit or sport; the chase; venery." I see that 'hunting' proper is the chase, not the killing. Certainly a firearm is not used for the chase. The term 'chasing weapon' makes no sense either. SaltyBoatr 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Further, doing a 'full text' search of the OED, which is comprised of a huge collection of English usage (2.4 million quotations) I find no instances of usage of the term 'hunting weapon'. Yet I find 3084 usages of the word 'hunting' and 1588 for 'weapon'. SaltyBoatr 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So, by your logic, a "fishing pole" should be called a "catching pole", since fishing is merely the analogy of a hunt. Sorry, your logic makes no sense and is lunacy. Hunting weapons do exist, and have reverted your OR in using the OED to define technical terminology for which it is not suited. Incidentally, by 18USC921,




Sec. 921. Definitions

... (3) The term ``firearm means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. ... 16) The term ``antique firearm means-- (A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or (B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica-- (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or (C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ``antique firearm shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted

to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof."

It is therefore entirely appropriate to use the phrase "hunting weapon" in English, as it is in full agreement with the terminology used by game wardens, by law, and by common practice. Weapons are not solely used in combat. Have reverted the nonsense. Yaf 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For two examples of "hunting weapon" being used in the mainstream press, see: [1], [2]. Yaf 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yaf, claiming that the English usage on the website of the Casino City Times takes precedence over the Oxford English Dictionary is laughable. What is going on here? Why are you compelled to fight against high quality sourcing? What is driving your defensive behavior? The article is now almost entirely unsourced. Can we agree to re-edit the article using high quality sourcing? SaltyBoatr 16:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Attacking one's culture is what is going on. I am simply trying to protect a culture against an increasingly cultural attack that I perceive you are POV pushing. I have used primitive hunting weapons many times while hunting. It was totally legal during the special primitive weapon hunting season for primitive weapons. I have also used blackpowder hunting weapons. Neither of these weapons were firearms under either state or federal law. Only one fired a lead projectile of any kind. The other one fired wood projectiles. I have been very successful with both. I was also one of many who were hunting while similarly equipped with primitive weapons during these hunting seasons. Arguing that weapons are never used for hunting or target practice is simply proof positive that the editors of Wikipedia are totally out of touch with reality, and decreases the credibility of Wikipedia. Quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary is entirely inappropriate for reflecting the hunting weapon culture of the United States. Yaf 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And the code you cite of one country has only a small relevance to this global article, and certainly carries less weight that the Oxford English Dictionary. <smile>And, Ketchup is a vegetable.</smile> SaltyBoatr 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So you propose that hunting be banned globally? As it effectively is becoming, due to the banning of weapons and firearms around the "civilized" world? Yaf 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Explain again the point you are trying to make with Title 18? It says an antique firearm is not a firearm. Does that say that therefore an antique firearm when used in hunting is instead a weapon? No. The whole point of Title 18 is to define a firearm in context of crime. What does crime have to do with anything here? We are trying to source the definition of 'weapon'. Is there any better source than the Oxford English Dictionary? Perhaps, but you have not shown much sourcing at all. And, the sourcing you have shown is convoluted, in apparent attempt to prove your idea. A better way would be to research credible sources to find your idea. 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If you really want to force the issue, then the definition becomes disputed, and both perspectives must be cited. I have provided a reference to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is hardly a corner rag. Sources simply do not "take precedence" over others. By that act of choosing, you are violating NPOV. --Eyrian 17:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
An antique firearm is not a firearm. This has nothing to do with crime at all. Rather, if an antique firearm is used in a crime in the United States, it immediately becomes a firearm legally; otherwise, it is never legally considered a firearm, but is always otherwise legally considered a weapon, instead. This complexity merely reflects the legal definitions extant in many parts of the world (USA, England, Canada, Australia). Due to the increasingly anti-hunting bias and anti-gun bias of the "civilized world", these antique firearms/weapons are rapidly becoming the only hunting weapons available for many hunters. Firearm law is unfortunately very convoluted, and is difficult for anyone who has not studied it to understand. This is not unique to the United States, but is true everywhere. How else to explain that a shoestring has been legally defined as a machine gun. But I digress. It is obvious to me that there is clearly an anti-gun, anti-hunting bias that has started to permeate all of the hunting weapon, weapon, and many firearm articles on Wikipedia in the last several days, with SaltyBoatr's POV pushing that weapons can only be used in combat or in war and can never be used for hunting because of the OED definition of weapon. This is patently false in practice, as weapons are used for hunting, as defined by both state and Federal law in the United States, as well as in Canada. I can't speak for other countries, as I haven't studied their laws to the same extent, nor have I had opportunities for hunting elsewhere, yet.Yaf 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yaf, the definition of an antique firearm doesn't define them as a "weapon". It defines them as an "antique firearm". If one is used against a human, then it becomes (legally) a "weapon". Any object used to hurt someone becomes a weapon legally. So if you strangle someone with a rope, it then is considered a "weapon", though obviously not a firearm. Notice that this fits with the OED definition of weapon. Anyway, legal definitions are only intended to apply for purposes of the law. As you pointed out, legal definitions are not necessarily based on conventional definitions. That's why a shoestring can be legally defined as a machinegun under specific circumstances, when it normal is not. Obviously, an antique firearm is normally defined as a type of firearm. That's why it's called an antique firearm. The people here are just trying to provide a referenced definition for "weapon". If you can find a better referenced definition, then by all means post it. Coining your own definitions is not acceptable in Wikipedia.--Dwane E Anderson (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It depends on how they are used. I am not coining my own definitions, just using standard legal definitions, here. An antique firearm is specifically NOT a firearm for purposes of requiring NICS checks, for example, under Federal law, during purchase. NICS checks are required before completing the sale of all firearms by dealers to private individuals by Federal law. But, NICS checks don't apply under Federal law when selling black powder revolvers or rifles, for example. Use the same antique firearm to commit a crime, however, and you immediately fall under 10, 15, LIFE, or similar penalties for carrying, using, or injuring someone with a firearm. Usage matters. Concealed weapon law is another issue, altogether. Black powder cap & ball revolvers, for example, are considered weapons in some states and not in others for purposes of determining whether or not it is a crime to carry one concealed on one's person without a permit or license. And, of course, casually speaking, any item may be used as a weapon; the definition usually comes down to whether or not you intend harm to another person, or intend to kill an animal, for example. (And, in two states, no permit or license is required to carry such a weapon concealed; the two states being Alaska and Vermont.) For purposes of not running afoul of hunting laws, however, black powder revolvers and rifles are always considered hunting weapons under state laws, with specific limitations being typically additionally imposed, such as requiring .40 cal or larger being used to take deer, for example. For small game, any caliber can usually be used; .36 cal and .31 cal are popular calibers that are used for hunting rabbits and squirrels, for example. Using standard, law-based, definitions makes a lot of sense, as it is the most common usage of "hunting weapon". Concealed weapon, however, is another issue altogether, and is only mentioned in hunting laws typically to prohibit the carrying of such concealed weapons while hunting, presumably to control poaching. Coining one's own definitions is not what is going on here; using multiple reliable and verifiable sources is what is happening. However, forcing only an OED definition does not capture the full range of usage of terminology contained in the English language, and the OED is not the only acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia. Other reliable and verifiable sources must also be used. Yaf (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with Eyrian, but look again, the Merriam-Webster definition you provided is very short and is silent about the 'purpose' provided in the definition found in the OED. The Merriam-Webster definition conflicts in no way with the OED definition, and they could be melded together without any resultant contradiction. The OED simply provides a 'purpose' not found in the Merriam-Webster definition. The existing intro that Yaf keeps reverting back into the article does appear to contain a lot of original research though. Also, Yaf's earlier contention that Title 18 defines antique firearms as 'weapons' has no basis in fact. I would fix the intro myself, but I sense a hostility aimed at me and fear 3RR retribution. I ask again, no one has answered me yet, can we agree to re-edit this article using high quality sources? SaltyBoatr 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that neither of you are hunters... Nor, have you ever studied hunting laws and weapons vs. firearms laws. Yaf 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Combining the Merriam-Webster definition with the OED definition would look like this:

A weapon is an instrument of any kind used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat or destroy.[1][2]

Any objections? SaltyBoatr 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

YES! Per my earlier comments, in that hunting weapons are common, legally defined, and are written as such in open literature (newspapers, etc.), and the terminology of "hunting weapon" is entirely logical and common in formally written English. You are entirely leaving out an entire class of weapons. Yaf 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, this might be better grammar, saying the same thing, and literally a combination of the two dictionary defintions.

A weapon is an instrument of any kind, (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat or destroy, used in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy.[3][4]

Which is better? SaltyBoatr 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This version eliminates the repetition of the verb 'used', and is probably best:

A weapon is an instrument of any kind, (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat or destroy, in warfare or in combat to attack and overcome an enemy.[5][6]

Any objection? SaltyBoatr 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

YES. Per my earlier comments. Yaf 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel I am attacking your culture. Are you willing to re-edit the article using sources? SaltyBoatr 05:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw this on the LoCE page & it piqued my interest. As a rough-and-ready comparison, googling "hunting weapon" returns 30,600 results and "hunting firearm" returns less than half that at 13,600. This would imply that "hunting weapon", being the more common term, is more generally understood. Wikipedia has to be written for a general worldwide audience; we can't expect everyone to be interested in following up the nuances of a legal distinction that may only apply in certain parts of the world. "Firearm" implies a weapon that relies exclusively on explosive chemicals to propel a projectile (I don't know how this fits the definition, but that's my perception of the word), thus ruling out bows, knives etc. As to the linked article, I can't help feeling (again just a personal opinion) that "primitive" is slightly perjorative in its connotations - maybe "traditional" or something similar would be less contentious? Interesting, informative article though - all the best with it ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A three-level abstraction is required here. We have the history and strategy which are inseparable, and should be discussed in articles on each war or conflict. That's the most abstract. Then we need the least abstract military equipment and tactics level, with articles like military technology during the Napoleonic wars and so forth, to make it clear how conflicts were conducted using this stuff - this should focus on the actual tactical combat engagements, how they affected outcomes, etc..

And, for those wars that resulted in a great deal of change to military technology, either because they were very long (like the Hundred Years' War) or very intense (like WWI or WWII), we should discuss technological escalation as a separate topic, more abstract than the equipment and tactics, less abstract than history and strategy. See Technology during World War I for an example - this can be done for WWII, US Civil War, Napeolonic wars, at least, as well, and maybe also for the Cold War. This gets into the mechanics of how things changed, how they thought, etc., and really isn't the same topic as either history/strategy or equipment/tactics for the guys on the ground using the equipment to perform the tactics.

He needs to add the actual weapon classification, class 1 weapon, class 2 weapon, ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"information warfare" & "weapons of mass destruction"[edit]

"More commonly called information warfare"? I have never heard of it and have been a computer programmer for years. Where's your reference on this? Or is it coming straight out of Newsweek?

Also, "weapon of mass destruction" is a term from the American political media. I do not think Wikipedia is the place to preserve presidential duckspeak.

"Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment by conventional explosive bombs in large quantities, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:"
From weapons of mass destruction. The term goes way back, even if it has recently seen wide media usage.
A similar media-happy term is "heavy weapons". Just saw an article talking about police arming with heavy weapons for 9/11 anniversary. Where "heavy weapon" appears to be assault rifles or shotguns, in contrast to what I always thought heavy weapons to be (vehicle mounted or multi-person weapons). But I also found that "heavy weapons" links to this page. If thats going to be the case, the classification should be defined here. (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


"The weapon is any tool or object that is used to increase the range and power of a human hand." I dispute this. Considering that you can be charged with "Assault with a deadly weapon" while unarmed, the human hand/body itself can be a weapon. --PK9 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Any true student of combat must realize that sophisticated weapons are only extensions of our natural weapons! Thanks for the change, the comment about anything that inflicts damage is a good qualifier.

The definition of weapon is not clear and is not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raljarf (talkcontribs) 10:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag[edit]

Added a cleanup tag because I think the Ancient weapons section is virtually unreadable. I tried fixing one factual error, and I see many others, but I don't know enough to correct them. I also think much of the tone is colloquial, or at least has many ambiguities. Please don't immediately remove the tag. If nobody else thinks that this section requires a cleanup, voice your dissent and remove after a week or so. :-) --Storkk 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we rewrite article?[edit]

I am sorry but this seems like a work of grade 10 student in high school. The statement is much too forceful. The definition of weapon does not match the earlier statement about how weapon can be psychological or just defensive. As far as I concern this artical contain too many errors, and the best way to fix it is to rewrite it completely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree this article needs many corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raljarf (talkcontribs) 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

History section[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that this entire section appeared out of nowhere, and that in the same edit valid information was removed and ungrammatical changes made? I think this is highly suspect. Potentially copyrighted material, perhaps? Robin S 06:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems the Index was added in November 2004 and that was just a cleanup from the previous entries built up over time. Do you have knowledge if it was specifially copied from somewhere? statsone 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Weapon is only the tip of the spear[edit]

A 'weapon' is object or device that imparts destructive or disruptive energy on a target. The word 'weapon' is often used as an abbreviated description of a ‘weapon system’.

A 'weapon' requires a 'system' to be useful, the weapon, the delivery system, the targeting system and the platform onto which the former are held or mounted.

A weapon needs a ‘delivery system’ in order to deliver the weapon and it's destructive or disruptive energy.

A club needs a man to swing the club; likewise an ICBM System is required to deliver a nuclear weapon to the target. A bullet requires a gun system to control the discharge of the propellant in such a manner as to project the bullet in the general direction of the target.

An effective weapon requires a ‘targeting system’ to focus the weapon onto the target.

In the case of the club, it needs a man to see or feel the target, the ICBM needs a sophisticated guidance system and the gun needs sights or a scope and an eye ball to deliver the weapon on target.

And finally a weapon requires a platform onto which the weapon, the delivery system and the targeting system are mounted.

The club and the gun need the man and likewise the ICBM needs a launch facility as well as the man to push the 'Launch' or an 'On' button.

Directed energy weapons[edit]

A section should be made that less-lethal weapons are the weapons of the future for both infantry and vehicle warfare (see this article, near bottom)

Also a section should be made on the nature of propelling the bullet (gunpowder, compressed air, centrifugal force, high power magnets as rail guns),...

I also read about low-power magnets, for use in SMG-like weapons, see this article for schematic Please look for more info on this too and include

Perhaps also include the needlegun (allows to fire darts with sedatives and coilgun

Thanks, (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of technology[edit]

I'm going to look for info on the misuse of modern technology, especially by USA & UK, to build weapons (instead of find the cause & solution to end wars & crimes, which is so obvious that no one can see it). I encourage others to do the same. Stars4change (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the misuse of technology would fit into a criticism section; where is a criticism section? Stars4change (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Addition To Weapon Request[edit]

Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Weapon" under the "External Links" section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public. It is our desire to be listed as:

Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.

The site is located at:

Milspecnews (talk)milspecnews —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

I think the site would be excluded on the basis of ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided numbers 1, 4, and 13. (Hohum @) 18:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, I will post updates as we get information back and finish phone conversations with Wiki Presscorp. We anticipated some resistance (not a bad thing), and we know that we are an authorized information center for the leading manufactures in the nation when dealing with weapons and gear. Once we get their approval we will add the listing accordingly.

Milspecnews (talk)milspecnews

Unmanned vehicles[edit]

Shouldnt there be mention of unmanned vehicles? There is mention of tanks and aircraft, but not unmanned systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obolisk0430 (talkcontribs) 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Trojan weapon" and "mental damage"[edit]

Is "Trojan weapon" really a category. Even the link leads to the Trojan horse. You only come across the Trojan connection when talking (a) about the horse, or thing things directly related e.g. "Trojan rabbit scene from Monty Python..." and (b) Trojans as a type of malware on the internet. I don't think either of these are weapons. You couldn't class "Sailing under false colours" or just "lying" as using a weapon. Similar things such as "parcel bombs" probably are weapons, but no-one says "it was a trojan parcel".

The intro says weapons can cause mental damage - the article then never mentions any weapon that can do this. I think this point is generally true, e.g. youo could use a gas bomb intended to drive people temporarily mad, but it could be argued against in some (distasteful) areas as well. For example, in the infamous Tarantino scene the razor is a weapon, but if I waterboard someone is that using a weapon? I suggest that, you can use weapons to torture people, but not everything so used is a weapon. Only things you cold use to attack them anyway count as weapons. For example, you wouldn't attack someone with a pair of pliers, so they aren't a weapon. Of course it's a bit woolly because you could attack someone with pliers and it would then be "using the pliers as a weapon" but you wouldn't say "using the gun as a weapon" because it _is_ a weapon - it's designed for it, that's its primary purpose. You could _use_ just about anything as a weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Antimatter weapons?[edit]

Is it really necessary to include "antimatter weapons" under the weapon category list? The immediately concedes that they're "theoretical." I dare say that's an understatement. Shouldn't this article be confined to weapons that actually exist? (Or at the very least, weapons that are currently being planned or developed?) Chalkieperfect (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Against the "killer robot"[edit]

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: A group of academics and Nobel Peace Prize in the UK will launch a new global campaign to convince the world to ban 'killer robots, "writes The Guardian on Sunday. Scientists are already working on robotic arms, which is the next step after the unmanned spacecraft, and will be available within 10 years, said Dr. Noel Sharkey, a leading expert in robotics and artificial intelligence and a professor at the University of Sheffield. He believes that the development of such weapons, takes place in an unregulated environment, and that almost no attention is not paid to the moral implications and international law. The campaign "Stop the killer robots" will be launched in April in the House of Commons and it includes many of the groups that have successfully led a campaign against cluster bombs and landmines. They are hoping to achieve a similar global agreement against these types of weapons. (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Weapon Classification: in need of an authoritative source[edit]

I'm a PhD student in military-economic affairs and I could not find any official document from major international organizations offering a typology of weapons (United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, World Bank). The UN has decent information on types of conventional weapons, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, but no clear overarching methodology on how these categories emerged in first place. UN Office for Disarmament Affairs separate weapons between Conventional and Mass Destruction weapons, but does not provide the theoretical grounds for this. The classification of "Missiles" as Weapons of Mass Destruction is certainly possible, but they are also Conventional, therefore there should be a methodology to explain and justify this approach. Actually, Wikipedia seems to have the most complete list of the different ways of classifying weapons. The division in User, Function and Target as different perspectives when analyzing weapon types is particularly clever. But is this the result of pure community intelligence or is there a missing source that has not been cited in the article? I've also tried to find a source in academic works but so far I have found nothing close to what Wikipedia has to offer. I think we should either mention that there is no source for this classification and therefore it may not comply with national or international standards of classification, or, if someone knows the source, please add it to the article. It will be a great contribution not only for the general public but also for scholars in the field.Thomas Victor Conti (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the 'particularly clever' division was my contribution. It works well here, but I don't know that it would be applicaible outside of Wikipedia - and conversly, divisions that make sense to academics, the U.N. or militaries won't necessarily apply well here. - Snori (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition 1989
  2. ^ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary[3]
  3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition 1989
  4. ^ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary[4]
  5. ^ Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition 1989
  6. ^ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary[5]