Talk:Glock/Archive 5

Kosovo
It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the Glock 17 & Glock 19 as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But people like User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. 82.35.32.75 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPA and stop edit warring. Kosova (your spelling) is not a country.  Kosovo's status as a soveriegn state is disputed, not whether or not withing the province/country of Kosovo there are Glocks being used.  You seem to be on one side of the dispute... whatever.  Your argument for or against should not be made on this page.  This article is about a pistol, not your political motivations. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected for 3 days
Ok, this is a rather dumb edit war. Kosovo's status is not appropriate for fighting over here. I have full protected the page for 3 days.

While it's protected, parties who have been edit warring are asked to go find examples of where Kosovo is or isn't excluded from other national user / membership type lists elsewhere in Wikipedia, to determine if there's a larger community consensus. Please post the results of that survey here to justify your positions... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Include The assumption we're making is that the list of users should be limited to countries, or former countries. So, Kosovo is a gray area.  It declared independence from Serbia about nine months ago.  Many nations have recognized Kosovo as a country, and many haven't.  Of course, we shouldn't expect it to be unanimous.  For example, most nations have recognized Israel as a country, but several haven't, and we do accept Israel for being listed as a user country.  Also, since this is the English language Wikipedia, I'm wondering if we should give more weight to what English speaking countries have done.  I'm inclined to say yes, but a possible argument against that idea is that Wikipedia is supposed to be international, no matter what language it's written in.  Looking at International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, it says that 52 out of 192 United Nations members have formally recognized Kosovo.  That includes the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia.  New Zealand, like many other countries, has not formally declared either way.  ("We will neither recognise nor not recognise.")  As far as Western Europe, 22 out of 27 European Union members have recognized Kosovo, as have 22 out of 26 NATO members.  I think it's a tough call, but, based on all that, it's my opinion that Kosovo should be included as a user in this article. — Mudwater (Talk) 07:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Because the issue should be determined by the wider community, it is outside of this project's scope. Koalorka (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. We should bring this question to the wider community.  How about if I copy the discussion to Village pump (miscellaneous)? — Mudwater (Talk) 16:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This seems to be a back-door attempt to get this editor's political views accepted. This is not a political article, it's a technical article.  Technically, Kosovo's status is not universally accepted, therefore the questioned content should be removed until such time as the status has been recognized at least by the WP community. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and raised this question at Village pump (miscellaneous). — Mudwater (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Serbian province for now until the wider wiki community comes to a consensus.Koalorka (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington DC Police are issued the Glock 17...
Washington DC MPD (Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department) are issued the Glock 17 (and 19). The Glock 26 may be used for concealable off-duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.216.88 (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Need a source in order to include this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey emt (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

glock 18 as a 'minor sub variant'
(this is in reference to this diff: []) according to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html, "The Glock 18 selective-fire automatic pistol was developed from the Glock 17" but "the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." this does not seem like a 'minor sub variant' to me. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Glock 18 really is just a variant of the Glock 17. The design is almost the same, the only reason the parts aren't interchangeable is to keep someone from converting a Glock 17 to fire full-auto. The actual design is the same, with some work done to make it so they're not interchangeable, and to allow full-auto. In addition, the Glock 18 is one model out of a large lineup, and was made in much smaller numbers, and is the only select-fire Glock. Calling the Glocks a line of semi-automatic and select-fire pistols isn't helpful, it's just confusing, making it sound like they're all available as semi-auto or select-fire firearms.--LWF (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree it is confusing, so that is why i specified glock 18 as being the only select-fire model. if that were left out, it would be misleading. the fact is that they do make a select fire model along with their other semi autos. even though there is only one select fire, it's still part of the "family" of guns they make. as long as it's properly sourced and not ambiguous as to lead people onto thinking glock makes more than just the 18, there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. it's factual and sourced Theserialcomma (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely doesn't warrant a mention in the lead paragraph. It's almost a novelty item. Koalorka (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add that my experience is that the vast majority of parts and all MAJOR parts for the Glock 18 interchange with the model 17. Janes gets it wrong as often as they get it right.  At any rate, even if it did, it's an insignificant point to make as neither the firearms nor the parts are generally available to, well, anybody.  Glock sells agencies the Model 18, but not very often.  Nobody wants or needs them.  Agree with Koalorka... a novelty.  The only reason lots of people know about them is that kids that play video games think they are 'cool' or whatever term they use these days. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * if janes is not a reliable source, that is one thing. but speculating about how often the gun is sold to government/military agencies, whether it's a novelty, or if kids know about the gun from video games, is all original research, and not really useful to building an encyclopedia. please provide some reliable sources for your claims, and that way the article can be amended properly. opinions and speculation about something without reliable sources doesn't really help. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * since Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, we need sources for our assertions. you claim that your experience is that the majority of parts and major parts are interchangeable with the glock 17. Well, that type of personal experience is inadmissible evidence on wikipedia, because we can't just take people's words for it, even if they are correct. we need third party sources. according to http://www.gunslot.com/guns/glock-18 : "Due to the fully automatic mode, the internal infrastructure of the Glock 18 is markedly different from the Glock 17, and the parts are not interchangeable. This was purposefully performed by Glock in order to ensure that the Glock 17 was not a semi automatic version of the Glock 18, however the two would be considered separate and distinct pistols." according to janes http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html: "For security reasons, the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." does anyone have any sources to counter these claims? if not, it shouldn't be removed from the article. please see WP:VTheserialcomma (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick check yielded the following: My Glock 17 slide fits on a Glock 18 lower, however the opposite is not the case. As for the parts list for what we stock, there are a handful that don't interchange.  We don't stock the lower receiver of course, nor did we have a number for the slide.  My point is not lost that it's immaterial I've just had Janes say some pretty untrue things about my units and our firearms over the years. I'll leave it at that. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT
the first sentence of the lede currently states "Glock is the name of a family of semi-automatic pistols designed and produced by the Austrian company Glock GmbH." Now, isn't the glock 18 designed and produced by Glock? Yes, it is. Isn't it selective fire? Yes, it is. So if Glock designed and produces a pistol that is selective fire -- which is a fact --, wouldn't it be inaccurate to only mention their semi automatic pistols? Just because someone thinks the glock 18 is only popular due to video games, or it's not widely available to the public, or it shoots inaccurately, or it's 'basically a glock 17', or it's too expensive, or whatever other original research and opinions someone can come up with, this is still Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. One of the fundamental rules involves proper sourcing and verifiability through third party sources. Right now, none of the objections presented as to why it should not be mentioned in the lede have been valid. someone mentioned that Janes might not be a reliable source, for example. if Janes truly isn't a reliable source, then it should not be used, and that would be valid grounds for removal. But janes appears to be a reliable source to me, as it's used in hundreds of other wikipedia articles as a source, including many articles on guns. for example [] [][] handgun: [] [] [] submachine gun: [] []. so please clarify your argument into something that is acceptable for wikipedia's standards, as i don't want to edit war. "i don't like it," "i think it's a trivial product," or "i know that it's too similar to a glock 17 to be considered distinct" without proper sourcing is not acceptable. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you've had 3 heavyweight WP:Firearms editors contradict your attempt at giving undue attention to this insignificant variant. Did you expect us to find a source stating that the model 18 is a "novelty" variant? Where we supposed to find this revelation, in Glock marketing material perhaps? Indeed, it's made by Glock and its selective fire capabilities are also stated. What more would you like? Did you know that Glock also makes a 17 Pro model for the Finnish shooting market? It has a threaded barrel not found in any other model. Why is that not included in the lead paragraph, it's made by Glock isn't it? There's also a training pistol variant... etc. It comes down to common sense sometimes, and you lack it. You've mired 3 editors in an irrelevant debate, please don't be a liability, stop wasting our time. We'd rather you contribute. Koalorka (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Theserialcomma, I think the point you're raising here is whether or not the lead sentence of the article should say that Glock is the name of a group of semi-automatic pistols, or a group of semi-automatic and selective-fire pistols. It's true that the model 18 is a selective fire pistol, no one's d*isputing that, and of course it's discussed in the article itself, in the Variants section.  But, in my opinion, it's better not to mention it in the lead.  Per Lead section, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.  The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources...." So, yes, there's a selective-fire Glock, and that's significant, but the vast majority of Glocks are semi-automatic, and in my view the lead sentence should reflect that. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Koalorka and Mudwater. The G18 is almost insignificant when compared to the other models, and doesn't warrant making the lead section so confusing to the average reader. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes four heavy-hitters that disagree. Of course, I was on the side of making the Glock 18 a separate article for the very reasons being brought up here but as bull-headed as I am, I conceded the point.  Feel free to dredge up that discussion again. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

it's irrelevant to me if you are a 'heavy hitter' on this article, a complete newbie, or a flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses. the relevant aspect to wikipedia is not the editor's 'heavy hitting' dedication to the topic, but the sources involved, verifiability, and consensus. because there is no consensus to make the changes i am proposing, then the changes will not be made. that is the only result that is relevant to wikipedia's policies, and i won't try to make amendments against consensus. that is why i came to the talk page, to discuss. i suggest all "heavy hitters" and those who use the "heavy hitter" fallacy to read WP:OWN. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You've obviously agree that there needs to be a concensus, maybe YOU should have read WP:OWN before you got in a revert war. It took me about two seconds and a Google search to find a reference that supported my reversion.  It says, "The frame rails on the Glock 18 have been raised slightly, as have the slots for them in the slide to prevent interchangeability between the frames and slides of Glock 17s and 18s." WP:OWN doesn't apply when everybody but you disagrees with you.  What you should be reading is WP:Concensus which is what we have now.  Thanks for playing. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you ask for a policy, look at WP:LEAD as already referenced, and WP:UNDUE. To give one model that has a unique characteristic a position in the lead equal to that of 24 other base models (this isn't counting 'C's, 'L's, 'SF's, and all of the other variants on the baselines) is quite clearly giving that one model undue weight. To quote WP:UNDUE directly, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."


 * In regards to all the dispute about interchangeability, that seems to depend on how you define major. One could call the slide, frame, and certain fire-control parts major to the Glock 18, as they are what allow fully-automatic fire, which is the point of the Glock 18, making them essential to the design, otherwise it wouldn't be a different design.--LWF (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

nukes, you removed a sourced sentence to revert to no source at all. you are the one who is edit warring. the so-called reliable source that you claim counters jane's (but you did not actually provide in the article) is 1. probably not a reliable source, as 'cybershooters.org deactivated gun collector's association' does not appear to have the editorial oversight and reputation of jane's. just compare the amount of times janes is cited on wikipedia to cybershooters.org: janes.com is cited 21265 times according to [], whereas cybershooters.org is cited on wikipedia 2 times. []. In short, do not remove reliably referenced sentences unless you have a new and better source, actually provide it, and justify why you believe it to be a better source. please see WP:RS. also, you may ask the reliable source notice board if cybershooters.org (or, in this case, no source at all) is acceptable to replace janes.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. you might not like their answer, though. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you weren't paying attention, my claim didn't COUNTER Janes, it clarified it. I don't give a fuck how many times Janes is cited on Wikipedia, I just don't think they are reliable on firearms. Also, if you weren't paying attention, I already said once that I was wrong about major components. Here, I'll say it again in case you're just looking for a Mia Culpa. I was wrong.  The Glock 18 is not generally interchangeable with the Glock 17, 19, 34, or any other 9mm Glock.  Two major components, the slide and the frame, are not interchangeable by design. There, good enough for you?  Do you plan on gathering your buddies together and proving how smart you were that you proved my failing memory was somewhat unreliable in this one instance or would you like to continue to use this talk page as your personal gloat blog? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

i really have no idea what you are having a meltdown over. i am just looking for the article to have reliable sources for its claims, and that the claims are accurately buttressed by the source. that's all. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez, would you please use the shift key. Meltdown, my ass. Throw a fucking cuss word out once or twice and people who can't use a fucking keyboard freak out.  So, two fucking sources and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you?  What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you?  An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron.  I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron.  Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request.  Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. See how cool that was?  You say I'm having a meltdown and I say you're freaking out.  Toss a few explictives and you're convinced.  Problem is, none of this is really happening.  I'm here at my easy chair typing on a laptop watching a show on Anartic core sampling, sipping a cup of cold water. Just 1's and 0's dude, not enough to get my dander up. Here you are fantasizing about some Arlo Guthrie song that I'll quote for you to ponder:
 * "And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
 * wanna kill. Kill.  I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
 * guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
 * KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
 * he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
 * yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
 * sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

--Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

relax, guy. the article's talk page is meant to be used for discussing the article and how to make it better. neither your poetry nor your rants help the article, but some reliable sources about glocks would. this isn't a message board or a chatroom. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WOW. Dude, you're telling me to lighten up?  Who the fuck personally attacks somebody by quoting Arlo Guthrie?  Sorry if my sarcasm was lost on you.  Perhaps you don't recognize tongue-in-cheek diatribes. Re-read it again and imagine you're watching a Quentin Tarantino film. Might want to take that stick out... well.... maybe you'd take that the wrong way too. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure what your recent rant has to do with making the article better, but i propose using janes.com as a reliable source, and accurately stating what is written there. the gun collector's club website doesn't appear to be as reliable, so as to trump janes.com, but that might be a better call for the reliable sources board. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skippy, you're in a different universe. I don't think you're even paying attention to what I wrote nor is your input the least bit useful, so I'll just bow out of this conversation. Feel free to ride your flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses to wherever you came from. If you come back from your trip, please RE-READ what I've said already if you dare.  Your comments betray the fact that you haven't yet read anything I've said.  It's what I'd call "rating on general impressions" rather than actually doing any work to improve the article... which I do on a constant basis while you have spent the better portion of your editing time reporting multiple users for being uncivil to you.  Hmmmm, maybe tyere's a theme here. Either everybody really is out to be uncivil to you or... well, you fill in the blanks.  I'm out. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

your continued personal attacks and incivility are going to get you nowhere. i suggest you start talking about, oh, i don't know, glock pistols? hey, what an awesome idea. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * by the way, in case you are unsure as to what my objections are still, i'll state them again: the source provided is janes.com, which states "For security reasons, the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." the article itself used to say "Most of the other characteristics are similar to the Glock 17, although the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with the Glock 17 for security reasons," which is faithful to the original source. your version, states "Most of the other characteristics are similar to the Glock 17, although the slide, frame, and certain fire-control parts of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with other Glock models." except the janes.com source does not state anything about the slide, frame, and certain fire control parts not being interchangeable. this is original research as it stands.  i know you want the article to be accurate and true, and so do i, but the wording has to be representative of the source. the cybershooters.org source is questionable, but might be good enough. the wording still has to be representative of the source. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Glock agencies (Discussion results from WP:Wikihounding)
Since you're hounding me, I'll turn and fight. Over 7,500 agencies use the Glock. That includes 70% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States. A paragraph and reference for each and every agency is impossible. Whenever the list gets out of hand, it is the job of us RESPONSIBLE editors to cull the list and not waste our time hounding other editors. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * so now you're implying that i'm a | fool (who goes on fools' errands? fools, i'd imagine), irresponsible (because you're responsible, and responsible editors cull the list. since i'm not culling the list, i'm irresponsible), and you think that blogspot is a reliable source. and listing too many references is | retarded. hmm. i guess you have proven that to you, personal attacks are preferable to collaboration. that is unfortunate. i recommend that you keep the reliable, valid sources as they were, and we wait to hear some input from other editors. the blogspot source won't be added, so there is no point in discussing it. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Once more, I'm saying that over 7,500 agencies use the Glock. That includes 70% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States. A paragraph and reference for each and every agency is impossible. Therefore the list will always be a summation. It is a futile (Incapable of producing results; useless; not successful; not worth attempting) effort to add them all.  That's all I'm saying. I'll try to take this as if neither of the two prior conflicts (an incompatibility of two things that cannot be simultaneously fulfilled) you had with me exist anymore. In fact, I'll nicely concede that the blogspot reference I gave probably was not good enough to reference my opinion on the talk page.  Therefore, I have added two references to my contention that 70% of law enforcement agencies in the US use the Glock pistol.  My basic point is that it is used alot.  I've even defined two words that I thought might have been misinterpreted. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i think this issue is settled now, as i do not disagree with your changes at this point. at first glance, i saw that someone removed a perfectly sourced paragraph because the future might entail an endless list (something along the lines of Wikipedia_is_not_censored. so i thought, let's cross this bridge when we come to it (i.e. when the list truly gets unwieldy, if that ever happens, then let's worry about it, instead of just removing a sourced paragraph without discussion. but then we had a discussion, and i heard your side, and i agree with you. success! puppies and kittens! Theserialcomma (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article full protected for 3 days
I have full protected (admins only edit) for 3 days due to ongoing multiparty edit warring.

I am also warning all the edit warriors, publically here and on your talk pages - this is not acceptable, stop it. This has violated edit warring policy, no personal attacks policy, and our civility policy. If this continues accounts will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)