Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
Flag of the United States.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
Flag of Canada.svg      Discussions:    Forces canadiennes / Canadian Armed Forces
Flag of Germany.svg      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
Flag of France.svg      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
Japan - Rounded Rectangle.svg      Discussions:    Portal‐ノート:軍事 / 
Flag of Italy.svg      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco
Single Color Flag - 007500.svg      Discussions:     بوابة:الحرب  نقاش البوابة
Flag of Poland.svg      Dyskusje:         Militaria / Broń
∑ Interntl. 1 <--> ∑ Interntl. 2

Expanding the scope of mass shooting listings[edit]

In the article about mass shootings in the US, there has been a move to expand the scope of the list from the original 20 incidents to anything 10 or more. Discussion is here.[1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal use[edit]

The closing statement for the RfC regarding use of firearms in mass shootings includes the following:

This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with care taken to avoid trivia and a strong reliance on reliable sources.

There was no support for limiting criminal use to a link in the See Also section so I have removed that sentence from the style guide. To encourage unfettered discussion on article talk pages, we should avoid having any overly-prescriptive statement on the project page. I propose replacing Criminal use with the following:

Inclusion of notable criminal use is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The level of detail should reflect prominence in reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT, and indiscriminate lists should be avoided per WP:TRIVIA.

Any thoughts? –dlthewave 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Broken rifle.svg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom (talkcontribs) 05:04 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I would keep it as is (post the recent removal of the see also only comment). This is an area where WP:weight doesn't provided as much guidance as we really need. Yes, plenty of sources may mention that a particular gun was used in a notable crime but does that make the crime notable in context of the gun? What is often argued is essentially resiprocity of notability. That is, if an event is notable and an item was a notable in context of the event then reverse must be true, the event must be notable in terms of the item. Of course this isn't true, for example a RFC here found that overwhelmingly the DC sniper attacks were not notable in context of the Chevy Caprice [[2]]. It's perhaps an example of emotion over logic that the Bushmaster rifle page does mention the crime[[3]]. Anyway, I bring that up simply to explain why many editors are against these inclusion even though reliable sources about the crimes (rarely RS's about the gun) make the connection. I think the current text tries to get at that. Citing trivia has been a problem in the past as editors are, understandably, relevant to claim a notable murder or shooting is "trivia". Springee (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
All that RfC did was set us back at square-one. We're going to see continued, separate debates springing up on individual firearm-related articles which will lead to conflicting local consensuses. Some articles won't have any content at all about illegitimate use when there should be some kind of brief note or particular event mentioned, while other articles will have lengthy sections about illegitimate/criminal use and/or mass-shootings/murders to the point that those pages will be completely unbalanced. I think that RfC was a wasted opportunity. Even now there is persistent disruption on numerous firearm-related articles and no clear, solid subject-specific guideline to help keep things in order. Eventually it'll slow down, but then there'll be another mass-shooting, and it'll just start up all over again. - theWOLFchild 16:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the project page in light of the RfC? –dlthewave 16:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Thewolfchild, the rushed nature of the RfC has meant there is now no coherent policy at all and no consensus on a way forward, is a real shame. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC).
  • Well, considering that you have been on multiple pages claiming that this project is irrelevant, and has no say over local consensus. What do you want us to do? Disband the project? --RAF910 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Firearms can be deadly ... never handle them without care.
If I may react on "Any thoughts? from –dlthewave" ??? Yes there are thoughts. Just to compare with Marlboro (cigarette) ... Cancer ? Yes it is mentioned in this article ... but Tobacco packaging warning messages etc. are described in other articles of wikipedia. There is no need to have criminal warnings in each single article of firearms as if they were tobacco packages. WP:NPOV and encyclopaedic use are not to be seen in doing so. For sure some ideological motivated people would like to see this. In my opinion questions of crime should be canalized in special articles. If nothing else can be helpful ... ok just begin some of this kind of articles. In germany we just have some discussions with guys who see a need to report about "gangsta rap" and Glock-Pistols ;-) compare de:Glock-Pistole#Aufstieg_in_den_USA, there in "US-Popkultur hat, lässt sich vor allem im HipHop und Gangsta-Rap erkennen. Die Gruppen Three 6 Mafia, Cypress Hill und TRU verwenden die Glock schon im Titel des Songs" ("US pop culture has its roots in hip-hop and gangsta rap, and the groups Three 6 Mafia, Cypress Hill and TRU already use the Glock in the title of the song.") Cheers. --Tom (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The project page should provide guidance in applying policies and guidelines to the subject area. I'm concerned that the current essay is often cited as a reason to exclude any criminal use that has not directly led to gun control legislation, which does not reflect PAG or wider community consensus. I believe legislation was originally intended to be an example of notability criteria rather than a requirement. My suggestion is to rewrite this section in a way that clearly defines it as a recommendation rather than a guideline, using words like "should" instead of "must". It might seem tedious to have similar discussions on multiple talk pages, but each case is different and consensus is to decide each on its own merits. –dlthewave 03:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to come to some agreement about how we would suggest applying WP:weight in these cases. Really, these issues come down to opinions on weight. Some people feel that if the crime was significant then that establishes weight for mention of the crime on the gun's page. This might be seen as a universal model of weight. Others, and I am generally in this camp, feel we have to look at weight in context of the subject of the article. One way to do that is look at how the material is handled in external sources about the gun. If articles about the Smith and Rugger M22 don't mention the crime then it can be taken that external sources don't link the crime to the gun even if external sources link the gun to the crime. I'm going to wear this example out but as an example consider the D.C. sniper attacks. Very notable crime. The rifle and the Chevy Caprice were both discussed in the news reports, the Caprice was especially significant since it was modified to be a hidden shooting nest. The rifle was basically a standard AR-15 variant. The crime is mentioned on the rifle page yet a well subscribed RfC was heavily against including the crime on the car's page. Clearly people felt that the crime didn't have weight in context of the car. We see many editors claim the significant thing about a gun is what crimes it was used in. That is a POV but it also gives context to why some feel there is weight for inclusion (universal model of weight) while others see the gun as something separate from the crimes committed with (the weight in context model). I think it would be best if we offered this sort of guidance. Springee (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable approach. Would it be appropriate to make an exception for shootings that break a record or have a significant societal impact? –dlthewave 12:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "breaking a record". The current project recommendation would suggest yes, we should include the crime if it had a major impact on society. What counts as major is another question. I think people could also argue about weight. Take the Port Arthur and Colt AR-15 case. I've been following the gun debates and politics outside of Wikipedia for perhaps 15 years. It wasn't until the recent Wikipedia discussions that I learned it was a Colt AR-15 used in that crime. Most articles and mentions I've seen simply say semi-auto rifle (type not specified). So a reasonable argument can be made that weight doesn't support inclusion in that case even though the crime is VERY significant both in terms of Australian gun laws and gun control debates in the US. I think the "also see" recommendation was a bit of a compromise between these two positions. Maybe it still is and in cases where the weight in context of the gun is limited we should suggest a see also link but in cases where RS suggest weight in context we should recommend text. Sadly I think it will always come down to some type of argument. Springee (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
A weapon is a weapon. Wether it is used in a crime (or legally to kill people in f.e. in wars) depends on the circumstances. Shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo was a crime, shooting the Romanows was a crime, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy was a crime, Drumhead court-martials are known with crime cases, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act knows crime cases, mass murder and Genocide are crimes. Millions of weapons have been used for crimes since Stone Age times. If it is a target to deal with this in an encyclopaedic way the crime cases should be in the first focus. Already well organized i see Category:Killings by type or Category:Crime by type or List of types of killing. I should be no problem to organize categories like "Crime by weapon" ... "Crime by pistol" ... etc. pp. The List of assassinations has cases beginnig with 117 BC Category:Crime victims has much content. Obviously there is a lot of encyclopaedic work which can be done. The way to strengthen to focus here to some specific weapon-models disregards the general scope of the crimes in historic and global view. Stubs like Goyases School shooting are an embarrassment and should be improved. The List of school shootings in the United States (beginning with July 26, 1764) is also an embarrassment and should be improved. For firearms related articles it will never be possible to find a WP:NPOV way to decide wether to include or to exclude crime related information, unless it is done in a special article like John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. --Tom (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@all here is a confusion concerning wp:disc see [4] It is inhuman considering that "breaking a record" (in killing people?) could be a guideline for wikipedia. --Tom (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I will note that project content guidelines cannot go against broader consensus (whether stated in policies, guidelines, or well-attended RFCs). For example, WikiProject Greece cannot state it's acceptable to use F.R.Y.O.M. to refer to Republic of Macedonia in certain cases. How project content guidelines reflect the aforementioned broader consensus is up to editors. --NeilN talk to me 13:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

just to confirm & understand it correct: broader consensus can not be to support "breaking a record"s (in killing peoples?) ??? --Tom (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Tom, your question makes little sense to me. Please know the difference and distinguish between Wikipedia guidelines and project content guidelines. What are you referring to? --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sry, i'll try to explain. If i understood you (as i thought) there are WP:Guidelines with an higher impact than project-guidlines can have. Humantial reasons should be founded within general guidelines. To point out records or similiar often finds conflicts concerning WP:NPOV. BTW Sniper#Notable_military_marksmen_and_snipers is a similar problematic field. WP should not support heros who shot **** people. Ok just to mention them, strictly obeying WP:NPOV is part of WP ... but not more. WP:NPOV is one of our not to be discussed pillars, which has to be regarded for articles concerning fireweapons as well. Best --Tom (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Tom, how much or how little to mention these people is up to editorial discretion. "WP should not support heros who shot **** people" seems to run afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED (coverage is not "support"). "Ok just to mention them, strictly obeying WP:NPOV is part of WP ... but not more" is your opinion and you are free to argue for that but I suspect you'll get little support if the first sentence I quoted is your rationale. Others may have different opinions, based on the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The trouble with categorizing by weapon is, & given the claim of fansite tone at the S&W page, I get the feeling the desire isn't [[Category:Murders by rifle]], it's [[Category:Murders by AR-15]] or [[Category:Murders by Smith & Wesson weapons]] or [[Category:Murders by assault weapon]]. Needless to say, IMO that's a non-starter. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I changed "... it must meet some criteria" to "... it should meet some criteria" to prevent the recommendation from being interpreted as a mandate. –dlthewave 22:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
As a non-native-speaker of en:language others should comment this change(s). I'm unable to overview further consequences. --Tom (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I have yet to see a substantial valid reason for the included criminal content in the extent they are trying to include it, even trying to take over lede statements. This content is in many articles devoted to it. Why not just a link like see also? The more they are pushed on this the more they start tearing down these article claiming not sourced or not encyclopedic or any number of things. I believe this is a effort to get others to back down or they will remove such and such. I believe the more they claim we are paid editor or a employee or some devoted fan are just there efforts to deflect why they are here and hide there motivation. Why not just be honest about it? -72bikers (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Is the overwhelming community consensus at the Village Pump not substantial enough? –dlthewave 15:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok now you are just splitting hairs. -72bikers (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes this discussion remains me to other discussions I tried to follow. And yes I also happened to meet professional editors which were something like anti-gun-lobbyists or perhaps hired by them. BTW at this point I'd like to quote Friedrich Nietzsche: “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” --Tom (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with 72bikers comment. Some editors here have been going to numerous firearms articles and adding new 'criminal use' sections and at the same time, gutting them of significant content. I'm not sure this is an improvement in every case, and I don't quite see how the recent RfC supports that. What came out the RfC was "to evaluate on a case by case basis". Where is the "evaluation" or local consensus supporting these changes for each, individual article? When all this debate started right after the Stoneman shooting, I said then, as I say now, we have to guard against putting these articles out of balance. The extremely minute illegitimate use of some firearms, weighed against their overall legitimate use must be taken into account. But some of these articles don't even have information about their intended, legal use. Just some historical, developmental and technical info, and now a 'criminal use' section. Eg;

Firearm x was first developed in 19-whenever, by the Amce Dynamite Co. in Somewhere, USA. It comes in 'various' calibers and 'various' models, It's y long and weighs z.

Criminal use
  1. mass-shooting a
  2. mass-shooting b
  3. mass-shooting c
  4. mass-shooting d
  5. mass-shooting e
  6. mass-shooting f
  7. mass-shooting g

End of article.

What is a reader going to take away from an article like that? Now, to be clear, I don't agree with the outright banning of any and all mention of criminal use, but I'm not sure these dedicated sections are the way to go either. What's to stop their continual expansion? We need a way to inform readers that a particular firearm was notably used in a notable incident, without overshadowing (or potentially overshadowing) the rest of the article.- theWOLFchild 22:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: could you point out an article that has the format you describe? The extremely minute illegitimate use of some firearms, weighed against their overall legitimate use must be taken into account. This is incorrect, due weight is based on RS coverage, not real-world usage. –dlthewave 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Uh, no... that is not what WP:DUE is based on. Of course, all information in an article must be supported by RS, but that doesn't mean you can just cram in as much info as you want on one particular aspect of the article's subject, and think RS means "no limit". All aspects must be balanced, and not evenly, but proportionately to the prominence of each aspect. The one aspect of firearms that a particular group of editors here has been putting a great deal of effort and energy into adding and expanding is criminal use. But there are other aspects of the firearm; it's development, history, military & police use, technical specs, statistics, variants, conversions, significant add-ons, etc., etc., and of course, intended legitimate civilian use. In most, if not all, cases, all these aspects together outweigh any criminal use. It doesn't matter how many sources you can find for one aspect over another, it's what even just a few sources can confirm. Some people here have either lost sight of that or never got it to begin with. One event, even with dozens, or hundreds of RS providing info on it, is still just one event, and more tragic does not mean more prominent. The Stoneman shooting, 17 dead, 17 injured. The Las Vegas shooting, 59 dead, 851 injured. Each still a single event. And the news cycles for each? About the same. Now to answer your question; is there currently an article exactly like that? No. But with the current trend and no limitations, there very well could be. Would you be ok with that? - theWOLFchild 16:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In fact, the Bushmaster XM-15 article is almost is exactly what you just described, except for the "Variants" section.--RAF910 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
On a side note, I have to ask; what's the deal with the "broken rifle" image that Tom added into Dlthewave's OP? - theWOLFchild 22:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry and apologize. This was a wrong position by mistake of me. I just tried to have the first pic a little higher than the second. --Tom (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. I found this pic in the article War Resisters' International wherein at position War_Resisters'_International#See_also there are some links to anti-weapons-movements. Anti-weapons-movements could be seen as the counterpart of pro-weapons-movements. This is just about my feelings which I have (about maybe unwanted polarization) when I read most of this discussions here.
Tom - Excuse me, but I don't quite follow the point here. The image is representative of an "anti-weapons movement", and you posted it to off-set what you feel is too much of a "pro-weapons" sentiment here? On the "WikiProject Firearms" talkpage..? Do I have that right? - theWOLFchild 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
♠The idea reciprocity is automatic strikes me as faulty reasoning. Even a mass shooting, in the history of a firearm that might stretch 30yr, let alone 100, isn't more than a blip. In the history of a company with over 100yrs' history, even less so.
♠I also notice this isn't being applied in cases of cars & trucks (let alone, frex, sneakers). In the past cases of nutjobs driving into crowds of people, were there ever calls to include the crime(s) on the page of the vehicle used? No. Even the Caprice in DC only seems to have attracted attention because there was a firearm involved. Can you say "double standard"? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The RfC had a clear consensus. Are you willing to accept that outcome? –dlthewave 01:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Dlthewave, from your question I feel a subliminal threatening gesture. This discussion has clearly shown that there are aspects that were not considered before in RFC. Even from your side, the need for corrections has been recognized. It can hardly be a privilege reserved for you if necessary to adapt the results of the survey as you like it. Basically, I see that your side with a vengeance to complete a mission whose final result is determined from the outset. The involvement of the specialist authors seems more than an annoying exercise here. Anyway, the respect for the longtime co-authors is missing here. Exploiting specialist knowledge for readers is the encyclopaedic task. It can not be a task to establish original WP:OR research in weapons articles ... unfortunately, the mixing of technical articles with politics and crime is exactly what is being tried here. Partly and with limits, understanding was gained and consensus was found. Trying to interpret this consensus again and again for the purpose of your own mission is not nice. It would be nice if you could show yourself a little more affable. Please show more respect and less aggressiveness. I hope my words do not sound too weird ... maybe it lacks due to my language skills ... maybe the translator is to blame. --Tom (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
My assumption is that the editors who participated in the RfC considered all aspects. The closing admin encouraged folks to come forward with any concerns, yet nobody chose to challenge the outcome. We are talking about corrections or changes to the recommendations on the project page, not changes to the consensus at Village Pump. The current project coordinator is banned from editing in this area, so I'm stepping up to implement the changes in the project. –dlthewave 12:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
fyi I did[5] --Tom (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
For the record the comment you linked is timestamped 14:20, just before you posted the link here.–dlthewave 03:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "There was no support for limiting criminal use to a link in the See Also section so I have removed that sentence from the style guide." I don't read it that way. I see that it ends up being case-by-case, which does limit it from the alternative of putting it in anytime and any place. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, the community consensus does not support a project wide restriction to a See Also link. A link is an option that may be considered at the article level but it is inappropriate for our project style guide to construe it as a hard limit. –dlthewave 22:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: You've raised this concern on another page as well. The closing statement of the RfC states that inclusion is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and the overarching statement "Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the "See also" section" is at odds with this. This is my interpretation. Please discuss your specific objections to my rewrite of the project recommendation here or bring it up with the closing admin.
  • Since this is a contentious issue I think we should run any change to the crime section through the talk page first. Springee (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a specific objection to my changes that you'd like to discuss? –dlthewave 22:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: per WP:NOTBURO, the request for prior discussions on Talk page seems unnecessary. The RfC consensus, in line with the Wiki policies and guidelines, is quite clear. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't specifically object but again, when edits may be contentious it's best to run it by people first. Springee (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree, but some case are handled by WP:BRD quite well, especially when there's a recent RfC in place. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Crime articles possibly not reliable ???[edit]

Hello colleagues, I tried to do some work which resulted out of the RFC to interconnect AR-15 with the Port Arthur massacre. I have asked for help at multiple [6] + [7] + [8] + [9] corners of this project. Now the thing is somehow stuck, leaving me with the question if this crime-related articles are OK regarding WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR / WP:PTS etc. Please read Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Discussion and let us read your opinions. --Tom (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice[edit]

An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. 19:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Call for nominations for project coordinator[edit]

(see "Results" below)
- twc 21:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We haven't had a Project Coordinator election since 2011. At that time, the election process was borrowed from MILHIST and called for elections every 12 months. There's no need to reinvent the wheel so I'm copy-and-pasting the previous call for nominations.

(borrowed from MILHIST Coordinators and revised to fit our project)

  • The coordinator's main role is performing the maintenance and housekeeping tasks required to keep the project and its internal processes running smoothly. This includes keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is little that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—the coordinator has an explicit role in only a few processes—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, the most efficient route has proven to be to delegate formal responsibility for this administrative work to a specified individual.
  • The coordinator also has several other roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as the individual to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, the coordinator has the highly informal role in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to informally resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive. The coordinator is not, however, an authority for formal dispute resolution; serious disputes should be addressed through the normal dispute resolution process.
  • Coordinators are elected by a simple approval vote of the membership, normally held every twelve months. Any project member in good standing may nominate himself or herself, including the current coordinator, who may serve as many times as they wish. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes becomes the coordinator, and bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project.
  • If, between elections, the project has more work than the current coordinator can handle, and no election is imminent, the coordinator may co-opt additional coordinators, to serve until the next election.

To get the ball rolling, I would like to ask for nominations (including self-nominations) to begin today (April 8) and remain open for one week (ending May April 15). This will be followed by a one-week voting period. Who would you like to see coordinating WP:Firearms? –dlthewave 18:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, and perhaps I just haven't thought about this enough, but would this end up being a wiki-political charged position? Since some of my edits have been seen as overly sympathetic in one direction I'll use myself as an example. If I had the job would other editors feel comfortable that my opinions on weight etc wouldn't have an undue influence on the editorial leanings of the project articles? We seem to have two camps of project editors. One camp finds the use in crimes and the like to be the significant factor in articles and thus where most efforts should be placed. Others are more likely firearms enthusiast and thus see the details of operation, subversions, and production etc to be the real focus of these articles while crime and the politics associated with guns should be left to articles on those particular topics. Would this position be, in practice, neutral with regards to those views or result in favoritism for one or the other? Note: I don't want the job. At the very minimum I don't have the time for such a roll so, regardless of my qualifications (real or imagined), I would decline any nomination. Springee (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not my home-wiki and I do not know the group of firearms editors to well. But please: An assumed polarization between crime and politics-related writers and more firearms enthusiasts is a mistake and in many cases a false allegation. Many of the authors are technicians or people who handle weapons as a professional tool. --Tom (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This coordinator position could be a lot of work for in the absence of shared project goals. I suggest project members ask themselves why someone might want to be coordinator under the present circumstances. I also suggest considering whether having a coordinator would be an improvement over the present situation. The designated week for submission of nominations is an unusually long one, so there seems to be ample time to mull over these questions. Just in case that submission deadline gets unexpectedly shortened from May 15th, however, I would like to nominate NO PROJECT COORDINATOR for consideration on this ballot. Some later election might select a coordinator if the present circumstances change in the future. Thewellman (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Long week indeed, thanks for catching that. I've corrected it.–dlthewave 01:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no project coordinator. Not needed and a bad idea. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no project coordinator. The position does not seem to be necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no project coordinator. I think it would create further divisions and marginalise some. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
  • Support no project coordinator. The position does not currently play a significant role in the project and is not needed. –dlthewave 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to nominate NO PROJECT COORDINATOR for consideration on this ballot. This to me reads like a self-empowerment attempt. -72bikers (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully self-empowerment for all of us as we realize the benefits of anarchism in finding shared values within our polarized membership. Thewellman (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Side conversation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So when I make a in general trivial observation about no one specifically, it is casting aspersions. But a editor saying I think the idea of a civilian owning a gun is completely moronic, I couldn't really care one way or the other if people in a far off country decide to blow each other's heads off from time to time. Edaham (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC) This is perfectly fine. -72bikers (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the resolution/ruling I read, there definitely appears to be a double standard. Apparently, a mildly snarky comment is considered just as "uncivil" as an expletive laden tirade that included threats of violence, and the committee topic-banned the former while only issuing a (third or fourth) warning to the later. TXGRunner (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
  • While I think a project coordinator could be useful, I don't think there is any chance of finding a person who could do the job in this climate. Therefore, I too favor NO PROJECT COORDINATOR. TXGRunner (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner


During the 1-week nomination period, no editor was nominated for the Project Coordinator role and 7 editors expressed support for No Project Coordinator. There is no need to continue to the voting phase, and the Coordinator section will be removed from the participant list. This topic may be revisited in the future if editors feel that a Project Coordinator is needed. –dlthewave 18:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gun politics task force[edit]

HK Central Statue Square Legislative Council Building n Themis s.jpg Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You!

This may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks –dlthewave 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Move page currently titled Type 45 Siamese Mauser[edit]

In Talk:Type 45 Siamese Mauser I started a discussion about a page move. Before I make the change, I wanted to ensure others had an opportunity to offer input. "Type 45" is a misnomer, the rifle is the Type 46; Type 45 refers to the cartridge. Possibly more significantly, I think the page should the more generic title "Siamese Mauser" as there were several developments in the rifle that changed the type designation, but used the same receivers. The details and supporting references are in the Talk section of the article in question. TXGRunner (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

Following discussion on the talk page, the page Type 45 Siamese Mauser was moved to Siamese Mauser style rifle. The content was also revised and expanded a few days prior, with sections for each of the models covered (i.e. Type 46, Type 47, Type 46/66, Type 47/66, and Type 66) and appropriate sourcing for labels. Please post any comments, feedback, or other input in the Talk:Siamese Mauser style rifle about the move or content updates, or implement edits as appropriate. TXGRunner (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

March for Our Lives Portland AfD notice[edit]

An AfD discussion related to March for Our Lives Portland has been created. [[10]]. Springee (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

March for Our Lives on Mainpage of german Portal:Arms[edit]

March For Our Lives.svg

Hello colleagues, just for your information: on the Mainpage of de:Portal:Waffen you can read the german version of March for Our Lives as a teaser. You may ask: why ? ... or better ask: why not ? In my opinion it is better to see and present real-life (and existing WP-articles) then somehow "sitting behind a gun cabinet" and ignore the rest of the world. BTW the mainpage de:Portal:Waffen had 41.634 views in the last 3 month. Best --Tom (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tom: cool; thanks for sharing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I hope this can break up parts of the polarization here in Wikipedia. Last not least wikipedia is not a Role-playing game to reenact the The Famous Five and Catch the Thief [11]. Best --Tom (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

article-stats-mainanance .... only for Enterprise resource planning ?[edit]

Hello, I came across Talk:Siamese Mauser style rifle and tried do fix the rating of this article. Seriously ... I think all this ratings are obolete. What is the purpose for the reader?, for the authors? for the project? I feel that it is just like Enterprise resource planning of WDME ? Supporting SAP_SE#Enterprise_SOA is somehow WP:WWIN not good for Authors + not good for readers = not good for encyclopaedia. For this reason I demand to fix the artcle-disc-project-tag of WP:Firearms in order to get rid of this stuff and the interconnections via categories. Notabene: maintanance and use i have checked via ==> since 10 years ==> nobody cares about this ratings. Best --Tom (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Additions to the .30 TC Wiki page[edit]

For the .30 TC Wikipedia page, I added the original name of the cartridge incase a reader was interested in what the "TC" meant. I also added that the .30 TC was developed for Thompson Center Arms and not by. The edit before, said that it was created by Thompson Center Arms which is not arcuate because the creater's name is Hornady. I added an overview section of the .30 TC just to give readers an idea of what it looks like in terms of size and how has it improved compared to the earlier cartridges. The picture that was already on the page, showed both the .30-06 and .308 as well as the .30 TC. The previous edit included information in comparison to the .30 TC so I went even further so the readers could get a sense of the quality. I spoke about the .30 TC in terms of speed and performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleath1 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice[edit]

A discussion related to this topic is taking place at NPOV Noticeboard. –dlthewave 02:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For those who may not have seen it, I invite attention to User:wbm1058's concise statement of a basis for perceived non-neutrality. Some firearms may be built for sport or competition, just as some automobiles may be built for competitive racing or appearance rather than utilitarian transportation; but there is widespread comprehension of the underlying truth to wbm1058's comparison, despite the fact that the majority of animals killed by either automobiles or firearms are non-human. A look at an automobile windshield reveals the automobile death toll is far higher. (Those who find the windshield tally irrelevant may observe the dead cats, dogs, deer, rabbits, snakes, skunks, and possums littering the roadside.) In reality, though, very few of the civilian firearms or automobiles manufactured cause human fatalities.
The neutrality issue arises if one considers the comparative value to Wikipedia readers of repetitively illustrating misuse of firearms while ignoring misuse of motor vehicles. If the underlying comprehension of firearms misuse is already embedded in our social consciousness, it may be a disservice to deflect attention from the potential dangers of motor vehicles. The equivalence of road rage to assault with a deadly weapon has been most recently demonstrated in Toronto, but the potential dangers arising from misuse of a vehicle's carrying capacity may remain unrecognized. Aside from domestic use of automobiles to transport firearms to sites of mass murder, explosives are being detonated in areas of civil disturbance; and the potential damages from flammable liquids, compressed gas, toxic chemicals, radioactive waste, or disease vectors may come as an unpleasant surprise to the unprepared. Thewellman (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I see the term "sport" / "sporting" used in the AR-15 style rifle article several times, but the article doesn't describe the nature of the sport. If there are competitions where prizes or medals are awarded, please do add this information to the article. I know that some types of rifles are used in competitions, including Olympic events, but I'm not aware that the AR-15 is. If there are other positive uses, please do balance the article by describing them. Wikipedia does have articles about drug–impaired driving, driving under the influence and drunk drivers; also motor vehicle emissions. If there is evidence that impaired drivers have a demonstrated tendency or preference for using a specific type of vehicle, then by all means do mention that in Wikipedia's article about that class of vehicle. If some vehicles are disproportionately responsible for high levels of unhealthy emissions, then do discuss that in articles about those vehicle classes. Wikipedia also covers the topic of roadkill. Again, if there is a vehicle type that is disproportionately responsible for roadkill, it may be appropriate to mention that in the article about that vehicle class. There's an article about road rage too. If truck drivers are much more likely to commit road rage than car drivers, then sourced statements about that vehicle class' tendency to disproportionately inspire rage might be included in those articles. When a particular vehicle has safety issues, Wikipedia covers that – Ford Pinto § Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation, for example. Though it wouldn't surprise me to see supporters of that car lobbying to remove that negative content, consensus appears to support including it. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hunting would be one of the sports. High power rifle match shooting is another. There are also tactical completions [[12]]. Some people are also known to take such rifles to the range for basic target shooting. Springee (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
By all means, please feel free to add a hunting/sporting if you have suitable RS that support this. –dlthewave 00:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I was replying to Wbm1058's assertion that their are no sporting activities for those rifles. I'm sure we can make a request for such information in the article's talk page. Incidentally, the NRA's page talking about the competitions is a RS for those events since the NRA is sanctioning many of them. Springee (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I was asserting that there were no sporting activities for those rifles that I was aware of. So I just learned about high power rifle match shooting. I see that in service rifle matches, a competitor may only use an M1 Garand style rifle, an M1A (M14) style rifle, an SR-25 (M110) style rifle, or an AR-15 (M16) style rifle. So sure, add something to the AR-15 style rifle article about that. wbm1058 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it was good that we could share some background on the subject. Sorry I misstated your post and also that my comments were harsh in tone. I should have been more tactful when replying to a good faith disagreement. 04:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This has been brought up several times, the idea of adding "legitimate use" content to some of these articles, (such as AR-15 style rifle), uses such as hobby target shooting, competition (pro & am), hunting, collecting, etc., etc. But the sources that were cited, were challenged as "non-expert" or "non-neutral" and nothing really happened after that. - theWOLFchild 03:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD, March for our Lives Portland[edit]

Since the article lists this project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March for Our Lives Portland (2nd nomination) Springee (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Crimes by Weapon[edit]

Hello dear colleagues, to make it easier for everyone, I suggest to consider the implementation of a list of crimes sorted by weapon. See a translated version as it exists in de:WP. Best --Tom (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Then just a sentence or two in the gun article, with just a link would not be a bad idea. Food for thought. -72bikers (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Safety recalls[edit]

Hello all, should safety recall notices be included in the articles on their respective firearms? I couldn't find any pertinent discussions in the talk archives, or any applicable project guidelines, so I'd appreciate your thoughts here. Thanks, - Mr.1032 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if it's received significant RS coverage. I would avoid using the recall notice itself as a source. Remington Model 700 #Misfiring would be a good example. –dlthewave 03:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Since autos have a higher rate of recalls, perhaps the discussion about this topic at the Automobile project might be relevant: [13]. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both! - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

M1911 firearm discussion, criminal use.[edit]

In order to notify all projects associated with the M1911 pistol article, there is a discussion related to inclusion of criminal uses of the firearm here. [[14]] Springee (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an assault weapon[edit]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talkcontribs)

Perhaps you should take this discussion to the Assault weapon page. (Note: I presume you intended to create a new section, so I did it for you) --RAF910 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Butterfly bullet[edit]

Is there, and should there be, an article on this new kind of bullet? Are there sources? Does this exist under a different name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Anna Frodesiak: The term "butterfly bullet" was probably made up by the reporter, or a mistranslation from Arabic or something, because there is no such term (a search on Google returns only pages about Bullet with Butterfly Wings by The Smashing Pumpkins...), so no, we should not have an article about it. Based on the description in the article you linked to it's just an ordinary "fragmenting bullet" (i.e. a high-velocity bullet with a thinner than usual metal jacket), similar to the bullets that were widely used by the Russians in Afghanistan during the 1980s (where they were called "poisoned bullets" because of the horrible wounds they caused...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: There seem to be some conflicting reports on this. The ammunition shown in several articles, like this one, appreas to be this which might go to the Expanding bullet article. But sources seem sketchy on what they actually are. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. I just saw it on DemocracyNow!'s show for May 4. Sadly, they are being used on people's legs. I hope content about this ends up in the mainspace somehow. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Israel introduced a new 73 grain 5.56mm Armor Piercing Match cartridge earlier this year.[16] "If" that's what they're using, it appears to be an effective anti-personal round as well. "Assuming" that the reports are correct.--RAF910 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN discussion notice[edit]

A discussion related to this project regarding AR-15 style rifle has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. –dlthewave 15:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Brand new article to improve--can you help?[edit]

We have a new stub that would be fun to expand. It has three reliable sources. Great candidate for DYK. What is DYK? See our entertaining guide here "DYK For Newbies."

Lionel(talk) 12:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Any recent changes?[edit]

I've recently seen a series of editors (both of whom are suspected of being sock accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid) claim that "All mass shooting articles are doing this now" in reference to them changing infobox descriptions from Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle to AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle (Ruger AR-556). Examples of this are here [17] and here [18]. Does anyone know if any sort of discussion related to this has taken place, or is this just a sock editor trying to force their personal preference on articles?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No change that I've seen and the editor has been blocked. Per WP:EVADE, the edits may be reverted as the work of a blocked sock. Springee (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that does not seem like a productive change at all. PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Pac. -72bikers (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @SamHolt6:: This is the type of edit I’ve done in a couple of places, e.g. [19] & [20]. I believe it’s more helpful to readers as many would recognize “AR-15” but not the specific model. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In cases when the rifle is a true "AR-15" pattern rifle I think K.e.coffman's suggested edit makes sense. I'm sure that's going to cause some issues since we don't always have a clear cut line in the sand when something isn't "AR-15 type". For example the Smith & Wesson M&P15 is largely AR-15 pattern but with a different gas system and bolt carrier group. On the other hand we have something like the SIG MCX which isn't an AR-15 though it looks a lot like one to the untrained eye. I think so long as we are open to discussion in cases of doubt this is a reasonable change. Springee (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It's common to put the type of weapon after the model, since the reader may not be familiar with the name. I prefer Ruger AR-556 AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle but would generally consider the edits to be constructive as written. The "grey area" cases should follow whatever has been decided at AR-15 style rifle or that weapon's article. We can have a case-by-case discussion if there's no satisfactory existing consensus. –dlthewave 19:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"Ruger AR-556 AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" looks like "sea of blue" (MOS:SEAOFBLUE); that's why I prefer "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle (Ruger AR-556)". In this case, Ruger AR-556 comes after the type of the weapon since the former is a specific brand name and would be less familiar to the readers.
Separately, I believe I only made the change when a specific model was an AR-15 pattern rifle, and not, for example, in the cases when the weapon used was SIG MCX. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
For naming conventions of firearms it goes manufacturer, followed by the firearm's name. If you think it should be different for groups of firearms that are based on similar patterns like the AK and AR you need to start an RFC and get community consensus for the change. PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe the premise that more people that have no firearm knowledge than readers who do is a weak argument (there are no supporting facts) for this unstandardized naming. Also the sea of blue theory is weak as the result is essentially the same. -72bikers (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The naming convention applies to article titles, not article text. The manufacture-model style, followed by the weapon type, is commonly used in infoboxes. The only proposed changes are to put the weapon type first and change it to the more specific "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle". –dlthewave 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Request additional input at AR-15 style rifle[edit]

There is a debate about several sections on this article that could use some outside eyes. One is the appropriate mention of mass shootings in the article lead. Another is how the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban should be covered in the article. Thanks! Springee (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion regarding Wikipedia:Gun use[edit]

A move proposal has been initiated in regards to this Wikipedia essay. Please see Wikipedia talk:Gun use#Requested move 19 May 2018. -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for a new missing article 11 × 59 mm R[edit]

Hello, could anyone here be so kind and create the article 11 × 59 mm R please? Preparation/Prework has been done at de:11 × 59 mm R (sources included) and thx --Tom (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, 11×59mmR Gras. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC).

RfC Notice[edit]

An RfC related to this topic, Wound characteristics of military-style rifles, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave 20:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

do your mission on your own. I just feel that nobody wants to go with your ideas any longer. --Tom (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: one of "your" Portals WikiProject-supporters is active right here. Sorrowfully Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms has almost fallen in Agony due to internal struggles or just perhaps because the editors do not like this area any longer. Best --Tom (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tom: Sorry to hear that. By the way, what portals fall under this subject?    — The Transhumanist   13:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Transhumanist: there is a bunch of projects interconnected. From time to time I made an update for disk-directlinks for international collegues to find each other. see:

 WikiProject Military history / Firearms International 
Flag of the United States.svg Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Discussions:  Military history / Firearms
Flag of Canada.svg      Discussions:    Forces canadiennes / Canadian Armed Forces
Flag of Germany.svg      Diskussionen:  Militär / Waffen
Flag of France.svg      Discussions:    Histoire militaire / Armes
Japan - Rounded Rectangle.svg      Discussions:    Portal‐ノート:軍事 / 
Flag of Italy.svg      Discussioni:     Guerra / Armi da fuoco
Single Color Flag - 007500.svg      Discussions:     بوابة:الحرب  نقاش البوابة
Flag of Poland.svg      Dyskusje:         Militaria / Broń
∑ Interntl. 1 <--> ∑ Interntl. 2

By some interconnctions you even find more f.e. Portal:War and Portal:Weapons of mass destruction Best --Tom (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Estimated number of guns per capita by country[edit]

User:Emir of Wikipedia has suggested that the project review the Estimated number of guns per capita by country page as the "Statistics need updating."--RAF910 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Polyamorph was the one who added the expert needed tag. I just specified that this WikiProject might be able to help. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:3001derivatives has been nominated for deletion. Comments are invited at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

RKBA Article[edit]

RKBA needs you to join in on content dispute.

1) Should Czech Republic be part of the article?

2) Should RKBA be defined as "as it is called by its proponents"?

Thank you. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How to avoid more criticism of this project in media?[edit]

This wikiproject has received criticism in mainstream media for pro-gun bias.See . Should the goals of this group be changed for more emphasis on NPOV - and in that case how? Tomastvivlaren (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The questionable nature of that criticism and the unfounded claims in the article were previously discussed. If you think there is a specific, actionable item that should be addressed please point it out. Rehashing the incorrect claims made by a reporter who clearly (and demonstrably) didn't do his homework isn't productive. Springee (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We did change the Criminal Use recommendation back in April so that it can no longer be used to exclude relevant content. –dlthewave 14:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I similarly question the portrayal of this project's editors as non-neutral. Some of the journalists making that observation seem ignorant of the technical features of firearms. Perhaps they are embarrassed by their ignorance, or by a perceived lack of tact by those pointing out the misinterpretations of their reporting.
I am reminded of the period between the World Wars when many residents of English-speaking countries refused to teach students to speak German (or students refused to learn the language) because they blamed the German people and culture for the horrors of the Great War. The resulting ignorance did not serve the Allies well when hostilities resumed. Assuming removal of firearms might reduce violent crime similarly ignores the social circumstances contributing to those crimes.
An element of the NPOV issue seems disagreement about whether firearms cause violent crime, or whether firearms are necessary for protection against violent crimes (including warfare). It seems irrational to assume firearms can be eliminated from military use, and debatable if they can be eliminated from police use, so the issue becomes entangled with which persons or properties deserve or require protection of armed security personnel. Is a wealthy or powerful individual able to hire an armed bodyguard more deserving of that protection than individuals unable to pay for professional protection? Does a certain monetary value deserve armed protection, or should that protection be available to those for whom much lesser sums represent the accumulated wealth of their lifetime?
These questions should be resolved in other forums before the issue of socially acceptable weaponry is discussed; but the technical nuances of projectile weaponry will be important in those decisions. Rather than encouraging the irrational belief firearms can somehow be eliminated from our society, project focus on presenting information to improve understanding of the technical features of firearms will be important for implementation of effective measures to reduce their misuse. Thewellman (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I in no way could have conveyed these clear important issues better than the above editors has laid out. -72bikers (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Chiappa Little Badger[edit]

I think that Draft:Chiappa Little Badger may be salvageable, if someone more knowledgeable on firearm sources could take a look that would be great. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice[edit]

A discussion regarding criminal use is taking place at the Smith & Wesson M&P15 talk page. –dlthewave 03:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is nothing more than forum shopping and an attempted to reinsert material that was discussed in a previous RfC. Springee (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: as I've attempted to convey to Springee here: [21], the prior discussion took place 20 months ago. This is certainly not "forum shopping". I think it would be best if disputes were not personalised unnecessarily. There's also no need to take such disputes to project Talk pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RfC[edit]

A RfC related to the inclusion of three mass shootings in the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article has been opened. Springee (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

China Lake repro info?[edit]

preemptive apologies if i'm putting this in the wrong place but i'm hoping for some assistance from someone more knowledgeable than i.

someone has recently made a number of edits with no sources cited to the article on the China Lake grenade launcher, specifically to the prices and production dates of the repro launcher in the 2000's. a lot of their edits seem to pertain to specific details of the launcher and one of the manufacturers, Trident. i was unable to find any pertinent info online that wasn't from a decade-old forum post & was hoping someone here knew or had access to something regarding this. i also posted something about this in the talk page for the launcher itself but haven't gotten any responses there. Dankdevice (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I applied lots of [citation needed] tags which may prompt the editor(s) adding to the article to include some citations. I found little more than the most basic information about the weapon myself when searching. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Links to Modern Firearms[edit]

Hi all, I came across the edits of @Mpopenker by chance. He has been adding links to his personal website, either as references or external links, to a significant number of firearms-related articles. These have been the only edits from this account, there are no content changes as far as I can see. I reverted most of them, but then I noticed that the links he was modifying (previously appear to be to a previous incarnation of the same site, and the previous links just redirect to Modern Firearms. The site very much looks like it isn't a reliable source. I don't really have the time to spend on this and it certainly isn't my area. If anyone else would like to follow up, please do. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nzd: IMHO Modern Firearms is at least as reliable as most of the websites of American "gun experts" that are frequently being used here, and has the added advantage of also having information about Russian firearms that are little known in the West. I posted a message on Mpopenker's talk page just before this thread here was started, BTW, telling him that the edits could easily be interpreted as an attempt at search engine optimization, so let's hope he stops. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If Mpopenker is Max Popenker, then he is a published author - he's co-written several books on firearms with Anthony G. Williams, including Popenker, Maxim; Williams, Antony G. (2004). Assault Rifle. Ramebury, UK: The Crowood Press. ISBN 1-86126-700-2..Nigel Ish (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Are articles about attacks in which firearms were used within the scope of the project? Jim Michael (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To keep the focus on a comprehensive description of firearm features, I suggest articles focusing on specific events, such as warfare battles, terrorist attacks, sport or subsistence hunting, wildlife management programs, sporting competition, or noteworthy crimes are not within the scope of this project. Where reliable sources identify specific firearm features contributing to the success or failure of the intent of such events, I would prefer to put that information into project articles covering such firearm features.
Previous discussions have noted use often depends on availability based on cost, production volume, and distribution of specific manufacturers and models, while broader firearms categories or features (like weight, dimensions, accuracy, sights, magazine capacity, reloading mechanism, reliability, and bullet weight and velocity of the cartridges used) are often more significant to suitability and effectiveness. Thewellman (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"Where reliable sources identify specific firearm features contributing to the success or failure of the intent of such events, I would prefer to put that information into project articles covering such firearm feature." This information is often quite relevant to these events. Although these articles may be outside the intended scope of the project, that's no reason to remove facts about the guns that were used. –dlthewave 20:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Another question related to criminal use - crime list at Glock[edit]

The only edits I've made to the Glock article was the reversion of an edit that wasn't discussed. I haven't added or modified content. I'm also a bit reluctant to wade into yet another gun debate... but here I am. The crime list at the Glock article seems to be out of control Glock#Criminal_uses. It seems to have evolved from a limited list to a long list of every Wiki-notable crime that used a Glock firearm. I think this is exactly the sort of list that editors were worried about when the project members suggested standards for including crimes in various articles. If a number of news/RS talk about Glocks and their use in crimes I think that makes sense. A list of crimes various Glock models were used in seems like a triva list (not saying homicides are trivia in context of the article what does it add?). None of the items on this list circle back and explain how/if the crime impacted Glock the brand/company/public perception/sales practices etc. What are the thoughts of other editors? Springee (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Springee...Your quite right. However, there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid there is very little we do about it at this time. Just "VOTE and HOPE" that enough editors realize where this is going and are willing to do something to stop it. --RAF910 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Which is why I deleted the list. If it didn't lead to a change in the law, what impact did it have on Glock? Show that., & maybe it merits inclusion, in the same way as (frex) Thompsons were affected by the 1934 law. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the article talk page. I have several concerns with the removal, particularly considering the fact that stringent inclusion criteria do not seem to be applied to other sections of the article. –dlthewave 20:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts and concerns[edit]

Well i for one propose we keep the Criminal Uses sections on all these firearms. I mean what's the point of doing it for the Walther P22 and Browning Hi-Power, then just leave the rest out? Do they really have to be so significantly known for just one massacre to be listed, yet others not (example: P22 mentions Virginia Tech, but not Kauhajoki - The same gun was used in both shootings). It just seems uneven and unbalanced to me. @OmniFrieza994: talk 20:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)