Talk:Smith & Wesson

Latest edit war

Be good if someone opened a discussion (and everyone should watch WP:3RR) but calling other editors socks/trolls/employees of S&W is not going to fly. Article semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion is the section above. Springee (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, is the editor who restored the material in question a sleeper sock? Springee (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Refusing to include ANYTHING about criticism of a manufacturer of a product used to kill people is crazy. Thos page reads like a fanpage for S&W with no balance. Would we exclude all criticism of cigarette manufacturers from Wikipedia? Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The removal was problematic due to the lack of an edit summary. The material was also problematic and the edit summary accompanying the material didn't AGF. The edit warring above is yet another matter and only semi-related to today's removal. I would suggest starting a new section to discuss the material. Springee (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to go to the car manufacturers article and try and shame the company for the use of there car by that other psycho to mow people down? Would the out come of the horrid shooting been any less horrid if he choose to use a 12 gauge semi automatic or pump shotgun or a semi automatic hunting riffle in 308 or even a lever action 30 30? I am not sure if you know the 223 round is not even really used as a hunting round for things like deer, it is really just a 22cal varmint round albeit with high velocity. Our NATO allies wanted to adopted a larger round, but accepted that standardization was more important at the time than selection of the ideal cartridge. Our militaries thinking for this round was that if you shoot and kill one man you take that one soldier off the battlefield, if you shoot and wound a man you take that man and a man to care for him off the battlefield. The round was designed for wounding effects once penetrating a target and better control in fully automatic use, also the gun and ammo being lighter let the soldiers carry more ammo. But all these things are really just irrelevant, as it was not the tool that was used but the mental health issue that should really be discussed.

All that said by you trying to push your politics and personal views into a article of a gun company along with the hostile accusation and ignoring consensus you are not adhering to the rules and policies of Wikipedia.-72bikers (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Or are you pushing your agenda here? Reliable sources have noted that many people blame gun manufacturers for producing and selling to the civilian market guns that make it much easier to kill a lot of people at once. Cars are designed for transportation, not killing, so that is an inappropriate comparision, but where car design has been found unsafe, that is noted in the appropriate articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: - "Cars are designed for transportation, not killing, so that is an inappropriate comparision" - Actually, just to be clear, the civilian-variant of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people either. While it is based on a military rifle (M-16) that was designed primarily to wound (as described above by 72b) and yes, kill enemy combatants, the semi-auto AR-15 sold on the civilian market is intended for target-shooting, hunting, collecting, etc., not killing people. That said, based on the recent high-profile involvement of ARs in mass-shootings, including, I believe, ARs made by S&W, the inclusion of a brief, well-sourced and properly written, neutral comment about these incidents and the public's reaction, would not be out of line here. (jmho) tVVc 04:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I'd also add, there's no functional difference between the AR-15 and any other semiauto rifle. So why target the "assault weapon" based on how it looks? Which is actually more dangerous, an AR-15 with 5 rounds in the mag or a Win '94 with 15? (Except to the gun confiscators...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC) (Deleted argument more appropriate to a gun control page...)

We don't cover what everyone should be talking about. We cover what they are talking about. If the company has received significant criticism for the use of its products in crimes, we report that fact regardless of whether or not the criticism is justified. I would expect the same if reliable sources reported that Ford was being sued for crimes committed using its vehicles. –dlthewave ☎ 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

♠"Guns are designed for killing" That's a bullshit argument. It presupposes they're incapable of being used for anything else, which is demonstrably false. Want to talk about something with no redeeming value? Cigarettes. I don't hear anybody calling for a ban on cigarettes. Why? Because there are too many smokers & too many people sympathetic with smokers to make that credible.

♠"Cars are designed for transportation". That fails on hypocrisy. If guns, which can be used for other things, are called out when they're used for killing, why aren't cars, which aren't designed for it, put under special scrutiny when they're used for it? Why are drivers (or, indeed, drunks) at fault for using cars (or trucks) for killing, but guns are to blame when nutjobs do it? They're both inanimate objects. Hmm... (Maybe when we get self-driving cars? Naah... The confiscators will still rather take guns away from law-abiding people.)

♠And when a truck is driven into a crowd of people, why isn't the manufacturer held accountable for not making it harder to do? When a drunk drives a schoolbus full of kids off a road, why isn't the manufacturer held responsible? Where's the difference to making the gun maker responsible? There isn't any, except for people accepting drunks & nutjobs at the wheel, just like accepting forty-some thousand dead in car wrecks every year. How many people were killed by nutjobs with guns last year? 100? Sounds to me like the execs at Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda America, VWOA, & others belong in jail way, way more than anybody at S&W. Except to the gun confiscators. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

TREKphiler, would you please ease off on the "confiscators" language? You've mentioned this four times on this page already. Nobody is trying to take away your guns, let alone Wikipedia... :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

New material

• @Legacypac:, thanks for moving this down in the article [[1]]. We don't have consensus for inclusion and none of the issue with using that source for that claim have been addressed. I've asked Factfindingmission to self revert due to previous edit warring. Absent that I will remove the material per the reasons discussed above and per WP:ONUS as it's a new, disputed addition. Springee (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict)It is not perfectly fine to include WP:SYN and to ignore the lack of consensus and WP:ONUS. If feel the link you just provided supports the material then suggests the appropriate edits for consensus review. Springee (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In reference to the above sources. VPC is an anti-gun group. They are an involved party and can't be cited as a RS. They can be cited for their opinion when appropriate. The Time article is about AR-15s. It notes that S&W made the one used in FL but it doesn't say S&W is coming under scrutiny as a company rather that AR-15s as a type of rifle are. The Wisconsin Gazette, "progressive. alternative." is quoting the VPC article. Again is that about the AR-15 or S&W? It also isn't clear the WG is reliable or has any weight since they are just parroting an anti-gun article. The BNN article also doesn't say what the article has said. It says the gun industry is under scrutiny and says S&W sales are falling but it doesn't say what the article says. Springee (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The VPC proves the increased scrutiny which is the point of the sentence. The BNN source has a heading "PUBLIC SCRUTINY The gun industry has come under greater scrutiny since last month’s shooting in Parkland, Florida" and is abou S&W specifically. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be surprised that an anti-gun group is critical of something gun related. The VPC isn't a RS for the claim you are trying to make here. BNN also doesn't support the claim you are trying to use it for. I'm not interested in edit waring to remove it but your reasoning for inclusion is flawed. The scrutiny section mentions the gun industry in general and never mentions S&W. The whole article is rather low quality. Springee (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow you are narrowly focused on reasons to exclude a good source where the headline names S&W. Here is another but I'm sure there is something wrong with this source too. Also the WaPo article run in another paper [2] Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I just think we should actually make sure the sources support the claims being made. We now have enough sources so we should consider OVERCITE. Springee (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion on S&W and mass shooting has been wide-ranging, sample: "A city that makes guns confronts its role in the Parkland mass shooting", Washington Post. Removal of such material is not in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Springee, if you have specific suggestions for improvement, please share them. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

My suggestions are above. Your source does seem to address the issue I raised above regarding the source not supporting the claim. I would be OK with changing the source to the one you have provided. Springee (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYN when the sources are making the connection between S&W and mass shootings. Please see the WaPo link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you read the material that was edit warred into the article the source doesn't support the statements added. Your source does generally support the claim (though weight could still be argued). Springee (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a really long page without a hint of any controversy except the added sentence so you can't argue UNDUE very well. It was not "edit warred in" and I've added some good refs from Time, BNN, etc. WaPo is another good one. Your threat of ANi does not scare me. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I can argue WP:SYN. I would suggest we change the source to the one K.e.coffman suggested. It actually does support the claim made in the article. Springee (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've replaced the BNN source with WaPo. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The material that doesn't support the claim in the article, basically all the sources other than WaPo, should be removed. Springee (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, K.e.coffman largely took care of it. I'm still not sure about the Fortune reference. It doesn't support the scrutiny claim but the other reference does. Springee (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Standard for armed forces/police around the world.

I removed a sentence from the lede which states that the arms are a standard for police and armed forces. The lede is a summary of the contents of the body and I couldn’t find a part in the body to which this summary pertains. I therefore removed it as uncited, pending either a citation or the addition of a section in the body which warrants its mention uncited in the lede. Edaham (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

While the article’s history section focuses on historical usage. The lede was suggesting that the usage of these devices as standard is current. I did actually find lots of info on current usage via a search so it probably is sourcable. Edaham (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Just more of the massive advertising brochure this page is. It's [[WP:G11] material currently. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This whole page should not exist

At least in its current form. According to American Outdoor Brands [3] S&W is just an operating division of the company. Since we have two pages and the one at the correct name is very short we should be merging them. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There's an historical validity to the brand name which gives the trademark its self independent notability and makes the subject deserving of its own article (if anything its parent company inherits notability from the brand). Per due, the focus of this article shouldn't be on the current status of the company, or even on its corporate history (although it makes sense to contain some info on these aspects for the reader). The focus should be on the notable impact it has had on culture. As a British citizen and someone who is entirely disinterested in guns, Smith and Wesson is probably the only firearms manufacturer I could name. The fact that I know it at all is due to the impact it has had on the media through which I experience guns and their usage. There ought at least to be something in the article about that. I agree that this article bears some of the hallmarks of an advertising piece and steps need to be taken to review it per WP:ORGDEPTH as some of the corporate trivia contained herein is a bit over the top. ORGDEPTH lists things which qualify as substantial coverage. Among that list is the example "Documentary films". A quick search of IMDB reveals a few areas of coverage which this article has overlooked and which might be worth a dig through. Edaham (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

♠I'd agree with that. Moreover, S&W was a standard police sidearm, & the #1-selling provider of police sidaarms, for the better part of a century. The reason the .38 Spl is so common is thanks in part to S&W sidearms. This should not be reduced to a couple of lines, or a single 'graph, on the current parent company page, any more than DC Comics should be reduced to one on the Warner Communications page.

♠As for the proposition the page is written as a promo or fansite page, that is simply preposterous, and smells of another effort by the confiscator lobby. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG, if you are going to tag the article I think you should say what is wrong on the talk page. Else how can other editors know what you feel needs to be corrected. Springee (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

oops, just noticed this post now... wolf 04:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This conversation seem a little off-kilter. Is this really a proposal? -72bikers (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Smith and Wesson page should be moved over the American Outdoor Brands Corporation title. The merger info at American Outdoor Brands Corporation should be merged in to thr longer article. The minor other businesses under AOBC should be covered in short sections, with the S&W section being the main section. I'd suggest something like "AOBC's primary brand is S&W and the company was called S&W until 2017." Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case the better solution is to rename this page to reflect the current corporate name and add the other brands to this page. This is similar to how the General Motors Company article is basically the continuation of the General Motors Corporation article. I'm not sure that justifies the tags added to the article nor helps editors know what needs to be corrected. Springee (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone messed with the section headers. There are two different issues being discussed here. I'm glad you agree with my suggestion to rename S&W to American Outdoor. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That was Springee, but I'm sure it was an accident. Just to be clear, this section ("Fansite & peacock...?") is to discuss the tags that JzG placed on the article (...and we're still awaiting a response on that. Quite frankly, this kind of 'tag'n'run' by an admin with 100k+ edits is surprising). If you guys want to discuss a merger, I would suggest creating a different section for that different topic. - ^theWOLFchild 17:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I moved this conversation back to the correct section, feel free to revert if this causes any issues. –dlthewave ☎ 17:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, well I had posted my suggestion (now just above) in the "Fansite & peacock...?" section in response to the merger comments that were posted there as well. But now that you've moved everything, there is no need for that suggestion, so I've struck it. - ^theWOLFchild 18:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Another approach would be to treat this as the S&W brand page, similar to the way Dodge is written as the history of a single automotive brand that has gone through several changes in corporate structure and ownership. If American Outdoor Brands is nothing more than a holding company, it might not be notable enough to have its own article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

American Outdoor is a WP:LISTED company and justifies a page. I've edited this page toward the idea of it being a brand but I don't think we need both pages and the listed company name trumps the brand. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Per wp:commonname and 160 years of history, "Smith & Wesson" trumps "AOB". Keep both. S&W on it's own and AOB as the main page with all the other subsidiaries listed as sections, (unless any of them are large enough to warrant their own page). - ^theWOLFchild 18:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no sound reasoning for article deletion or name change. Just simply covered in the article. The firearms are still produced with the Smith & Wesson name. This article is for a company that is 166 years old and is lengthy. There also is no reason to deny content on a neutral point of view. But this article should stand and simply have a link on outdoor article as the main article for SW.

This is from there source listed here at the top, and states the importance of the name. "Since its corporate identity stretches all the way back to 1852 and encompasses a brand that is not only well known in the firearms industry (and in some ways is synonymous with it), but is also identifiable by most people outside of the industry, it's a move that shouldn't be taken lightly." it also says the name change is for when the firearm market dips this would provide income from there other outdoor products. -72bikers (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Fansite" and "peacock"...?

JzG - First off, do you think both of these tags are necessary? Seems a little redundant, wouldn't one suffice? Second, can you point out just what part(s) of this article supports the addition of these tags? - ^theWOLFchild 04:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There is some overlap but they are distinct. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG:, sorry my previous ping didn't work. Anyway, can you describe the issues? Currently we would have no way to know if your concerns have been addressed. Springee (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The page and its many daughter pages on the company's products read like a more exhaustive version of the American Outdoor Brands Corporation website. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That isn't an actionable criticism other than an oblique suggestion of a merger (I support the idea of a merge). We are going to need suggestions for passages to fix or material to add/remove. Springee (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The merger is one issue. The fan/peacock problem is another issue. To solve the fan/peacock issues we need to trim out material that is promotional without imparting useful information. Anything that is best hosted on the company's own website should be removed. In the other direction the page should cover important criticism from NRA et al, anti-gun interests, and investor side commentary. The page needs to move from "what the company would write about itself" to reflect "what othere write about the company". If this came through AfC as is it would be rejected as NPOV, although I would accept it as notable and tag it for cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering how many times multiple editors are going to need to ask this; can you, or JzG, or anyone, please list some actual examples of this problematic content? And while you posting suggestions of what needs to go, would you care to add some examples of what you're suggesting needs to be added? Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 18:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it would appear to be just double-talk. -72bikers (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Re the above two headings.

• Yes I think the tags belong. Lots of the article is stuff which would only matter to a corporation and their potential clients, is primary sourced and of dubious notability.
• No The page shouldn't be merged/removed. apologies to legacypac, but I think that the brand/name/concept of the subject has massive independent, easily sourced notability, which exists in films and print media either influenced by or solely based upon the subject. Besides the latter, news articles (historical and contemporary) make frequent mention of the brand without mentioning the parent company.
• There seems to be an argument about lobbyist points of view regarding gun ownership in the USA. To anyone on either side of this debate who is contributing to this discussion on article improvement: WP:NOTFORUM. We aren't trying to discuss whether or not to write good things or bad things about this subject. We are only trying to decide whether or not the things we are writing are notable. For what its worth I'm a British citizen living in China and whilst 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. I'd just like to see a good article. I can't seriously believe that with guns being the subject they are right now, that nothing notable has been written which criticizes this company. Nor can I believe that there aren't sources (such as the one linked above) which praise its business development. Edaham (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification - the bbc article [4] is dated Dec 2015 a year before the company renamed itself American Outdoor. You may have a valid point about the WP:COMMONNAME but that article does not support it. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)